There’s simply no Jus­dyce


AUCK­LAND: What’s in a name? Well, usu­ally let­ters, for a start.

The Depart­ment of In­ter­nal af­fairs has re­leased a list of baby names it de­clined last year — two of which were not names, but Ro­man nu­mer­als II and III.

Sixty­six names got the boot and in­cluded mostly a mix of royal ti­tles, mil­i­tary ranks and pos­si­bly a kind of lip­stick — Hunter­Rhouge.

Six babies missed out on be­ing called King, two ap­pli­ca­tions were re­ceived for the name Queen and three bubs missed out on be­ing dubbed Roy­alty for life.

Other par­ents felt their lit­tle ones were on equal lev­els to the Almighty — de­pend­ing on what you be­lieve in — and of­fered the likes of Al­lah, Em­peror, Em­prah, Mes­siah, Majesty and Saint.

Births, death and mar­riages reg­is­trar­general Jeff Mont­gomery said there were bound­aries that made sure names did not cause of­fence, were of rea­son­able length and did not un­jus­ti­fi­ably re­sem­ble an of­fi­cial ti­tle or rank.

‘‘The name of any baby born and reg­is­tered in New Zealand must com­ply with New Zealand’s rules — re­gard­less of the na­tion­al­ity of the par­ents,’’ he said.

‘‘For ex­am­ple, you’ll need to re­think swear words, names of more than 70 char­ac­ters, nu­mer­als or any­thing un­pro­nounce­able — like a back­slash or a punc­tu­a­tion mark.

‘‘There’s no prob­lem if you want to give your child a spelled­out num­ber or even a silly name, but re­mem­ber, your child has to live with it.’’ — NZME

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.