18 February 2006

What's in a name?

The Guardian ponders the significance of the name of the latest Cameron offspring:
"A century ago, Arthur meant Balfour, Conan Doyle or Sullivan, all upstanding but privately-troubled people. In more recent times, the likes of Askey, Miller and Ransome apart, Arthur has meant mainly Scargill, which has been trouble of a different kind. Assuming that the Camerons have not named their latest in honour of either Rimbaud or Schopenhauer, which would be unusual in Witney or even Notting Hill, there is only one Arthur who counts - the once and future king who represents so much of the British collective unconscious. There is no more magic-laden name in these islands than Arthur - and the leader who will rise again and restore the ancient order of things to its former greatness also seems a suitable name for this latest Tory boy."

But what about Arthur Daley?

No comments: