View Message

Lennon, Harrison and...
A family friend already has a daughter Lennon and is due in the next few weeks with twin boys. She just announced via Facebook that babies will be Harrison and McCartney. They plan to stop at the three kids, so very little chance there will ever add a little Ringo to the family. Thoughts? I've heard worse, but those poor kids.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

Not a fan. While each name might be acceptable on it's own... it's kitchy to use your children for patterns like this. I think it lacks a certain class, and since the Beatles are widely known, it's not a theme that would be secret or surprising - which might make it fun. I would rather see someone use the middle names of all the Beatles or a name used in three of their songs than to just use their surnames. If you are going for unique, at least get your creative on.
vote up1
They couldn't have gone with John, George, and Paul? :( They could have used Georgina or Paula for the girl.
vote up1
The Beatles are my top favorite band, but even I don't care for that sibset! I don't find Lennon feminine at all, and McCartney is just too much of a surname for my liking. Name the poor kid James or Paul if you want to name him after Paul McCartney! I mean, I do plan on honoring George Harrison; my top favorite boy name is Carl George. My mother let me name one of our cats Lennon... Other than honoring George, I'd only ever use Beatle-themed names on pets and stuffed animals (I am old, but still a child).
vote up1
Harrison and McCartney are not all that bad for boys. They could be called Harry and Mac. I find Lennon atrocious for a girl, but there are so many surnames being used on girls these days, that I don't think anyone will bat an eye. I don't think that anyone will even assume it's for John Lennon until and unless they learn her brothers' names.Now Ringo would be bad.But really I have to add. I like the Beatles as much as the next person. Probably more than most younger people do. I like their music. I have never cared one whit about them as persons. I don't even think that Lennon was the saint that he is made out to be. What did they do? They were talented songwriters and musicians, that much is undeniable. That's all that anyone who didn't know them personally can say. Is that enough to name a child for? I don't think so.
vote up1
Here, here!I totally agree with you that Lennon is terrible for a girl and generally hate surnames on girls anyway. I also don't understand the need for people to name their children after celebrities they have never met! That child knows nothing about the celebrity they are named after when born and who are we as parents, to throw our love of someone onto that child anyway! I would have to laugh if the kids grew up loathing The Beatles!
vote up1
Yeah, if you've read anything about John Lennon, he wasn't actually a very good person...
vote up1
I was just going to say this. The man made incredible music, but he was something of a poser and an asshole. Just ask his first wife and son.
vote up1
agree with most of this ...And having a Beatles'-themed sibset is very cheesy and sounds like a gag on a sitcom. And gags tend to quit being funny pretty fast.
Ringo would make a good name for a dog or cat.
vote up1