DanMargarita.com

Parents want their children to be distinctive and setting them forth in the world with a moniker that will grab the attention of people seems to be a must these days.

I suppose this has always been true to a degree. Early in our nation’s history a learned man became President of the United States with a pretty simple name…John Adams. No middle name is given, that I can find. Several years later, his son would also serve as President…John Quincy Adams. He could’ve been named John Adams Jr., but John Quincy Adams seems much more aristocratic. Yet, despite the three-name moniker, they’re still three pretty simple Anglo names. The younger Adams had four children of his own, naming one son…John Adams. Think that might have caused a little confusion when handing out the presents at Christmas?

History has repeated itself, of course. Up until the year 2000 our 41st President was known as George Bush. Then his son ran for President and the father became referred to as George Herbert Walker Bush (Can you get anymore blue-blood than that?), George H.W. Bush or simply George Bush 41. Thus his son is usually referred to as George W. Bush, as well as many less pleasant things as his popularity poll numbers continue to plummet.

Formal names had always been used for the Commander-in-Chief until 1945 when "Harry" S. Truman assumed the presidency upon the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Even then, Truman seemed to feel the necessity to give emphasis to the “S” to make the name seem more formal. The formality barrier was completely shattered in 1976 when James Earl Carter wanted to be known as President "Jimmy" Carter. Would the Cold War have unfolded differently if Josef Stalin had been confronted at the Yalta Conference by “Frankie” Roosevelt?

The same was certainly true for the bad guys, too. Do you think Hitler’s friends ever called him “Dolph”?

“Honey, let’s invite Eva and Dolph over for dinner.”

On second thought, I don’t imagine the Hitler’s got a lot of dinner invitations.

There are some people you wouldn’t even think about calling by their informal name. Would Mother “Terry” have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize?

By the same token, some individuals aren’t deserving of a formal name which might imply some measure of respect. Nobody would say that 19th century London was terrorized by “John” the Ripper.

I don’t use “Daniel” that often, although some people call me that on occasion. The one time I do use it is when I’m ordering food via the telephone because if I don’t they’ll ask me for my last initial so that they confuse me with another Dan that ordered food. It seems that I’m not the only Dan that orders food from restaurants. Of course being a bachelor, my calls to certain restaurants sometimes become a little predictable. When it gets to the point where I call a restaurant and the person answering recognizes my voice and says “Is this Daniel?” I know it’s time to start ordering from a different place.

Sometimes we assign formal names where they don’t seem to be needed. When referring to the general public, they become known as “John Q. Public” with the “Q” no doubt standing for “Quincy.”

Of course, people have the right to name their kids whatever they choose. After all, nobody wants their child to be a regular Joseph Schmoe.