A Swedish couple’s life is being put on hold and frustrated by the refusal of that country’s tax authority to OK the name of their 6-month-old daughter. The name the couple chose and the government rejected: Metallica.
Sweden’s tax agency rejected Michael and Karolina Tomaro’s application to name their six-month-old daughter after the legendary rock band. “It suits her,” Karolina Tomaro, 27, said Tuesday of the name. “She’s decisive and she knows what she wants.”
Although little Metallica has already been baptized, the Swedish National Tax Board refused to register the name, saying it was associated with both the rock group and the word “metal.”
See here for the full news piece.
This doesn’t make sense to me.
The couple should be able to use any name they want. It shouldn’t matter that the word has been used/was created as the proper noun identifying a band.
Per this site, many people and institutions should be in uproar about naming conventions, too:
• Nivea and Terius Nash named their child Navy. Now there’s a name the U.S. government should protest.
• Sylvester Stallone has a daughter named Sistine Rose. Should the Vatican complain? Or what about Michaelangelo’s estate?
• Gwenyth Paltrow and Chris Martin named their daughter Apple. I haven’t heard the Washington state fruit industry grousing.
I’ll add to the list:
• Brooklyn was in the top 100 most popular names in the United States in 2005 (the most recent year of data), according to the Social Security Administration — number 78, to be exact. Should the name be banned, since it’s associated with the borough of New York?
• A friend of mine named her daughter Britain. Similar to the Brittany of the day, but also unique.
Naming a child is such an individual process. Each parent is pulled in multiple directions when considering the possibilities — unique? popular? family name? traditional? meaning? sound? origin?
No matter the parents’ homeland, they should be able to select the name of their choice.