New Post
Search
Help[Facts] My column on Chelsea
December is always an extremely busy month and I forgot to post the link to this column until nine days after it was published. Sorry!
https://omaha.com/life-entertainment/local/cleveland-evans-comedian-gives-the-name-chelsea-21st-century-cachet/article_33b5e7d4-ac21-11ef-bbff-ef8f1daf6bcf.html
This was a name where I found a lot more interesting information than would fit into the column. Something the column points out is that Chelsea is an early example of a name which went straight from place name to given name without ever being a surname first. Now, in checking census records there were 26 people in the 1950 United States census (the latest available) with the surname Chelsea. However, using links readily available in Ancestry.com I quickly found that 24 of these people were members of families who had changed their surnames from something Polish or Romanian such as Cieliczka or Ciesielski. The one married couple I couldn't verify a name change for probably had also done so, because though the husband was born in the USA the wife was born in Hungary and I could not find them at all in the 1940 census.
The idea of turning Chelsea into a given name started in the USA. The first Chelsea born in England was only born in 1889 -- Chelsea Dutton of Warwickshire, who like the first Chelseas in the USA was male, not female. He was killed in March 1918 in World War I and tragically his younger brother Percy was killed in the war only six weeks later. Though his parents also had a younger son and two daughters, I found myself being really sad for this family that lost two sons in battle in such a short time.
The first female Chelsea born in England, Chelsea Annie Dunham, was born in Lympstone, Devon in 1896.
https://omaha.com/life-entertainment/local/cleveland-evans-comedian-gives-the-name-chelsea-21st-century-cachet/article_33b5e7d4-ac21-11ef-bbff-ef8f1daf6bcf.html
This was a name where I found a lot more interesting information than would fit into the column. Something the column points out is that Chelsea is an early example of a name which went straight from place name to given name without ever being a surname first. Now, in checking census records there were 26 people in the 1950 United States census (the latest available) with the surname Chelsea. However, using links readily available in Ancestry.com I quickly found that 24 of these people were members of families who had changed their surnames from something Polish or Romanian such as Cieliczka or Ciesielski. The one married couple I couldn't verify a name change for probably had also done so, because though the husband was born in the USA the wife was born in Hungary and I could not find them at all in the 1940 census.
The idea of turning Chelsea into a given name started in the USA. The first Chelsea born in England was only born in 1889 -- Chelsea Dutton of Warwickshire, who like the first Chelseas in the USA was male, not female. He was killed in March 1918 in World War I and tragically his younger brother Percy was killed in the war only six weeks later. Though his parents also had a younger son and two daughters, I found myself being really sad for this family that lost two sons in battle in such a short time.
The first female Chelsea born in England, Chelsea Annie Dunham, was born in Lympstone, Devon in 1896.
This message was edited 12/11/2024, 3:17 PM
6
Replies
"Chelsea remained rare and predominantly male until 1969. The 1950 census found 474 men and 328 women named Chelsea, Chelsey or Chelsie. "
That looks like a unisex name, not "predominantly male". Men can be given unisex names, we don't need to exaggerate to make it binary.
That looks like a unisex name, not "predominantly male". Men can be given unisex names, we don't need to exaggerate to make it binary.
3
I guess we will have to disagree on the meaning of the word "predominantly." The figures in the 1950 census were 59.1% male and 40.9% female. To my mind it's perfectly correct to call such a spread "predominantly male."
1
In a room of 10 people with this breakdown, 6 would be men and 4 would be women. Would you say that was a group of predominantly men? I don't mean to argue word definitions, just suggesting you might have a bias towards describing unisex names as men's names, or over emphazing the importance that there were more men than women. I love your articles, they are all the interesting stories of why names were given! But I've noticed this a couple times, with your Stacy article as well.
1
Yes, I would describe a group of 6 men and 4 women as being predominantly male. A 60%-40% election result in the USA would generally be called a "landslide," and to me "predominantly" is a lot less strong a word than that.
2
The strength of a word like landslide matters in context, where most elections are almost 50-50 and a 60-40 result is a notable change. In a world where at least 90% of Americans are given a name that's 99% single gender (based on 1960s data), a 60-40 result is notable. Names are predominantly given to a single gender. Chelsea was a unisex landslide.
2
In the article it says there was a woman Chelsea Brown who was on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, and then some people were named after Joni Mictchell's song Chelsea (like Bill and Hillary Clinton's daughter).
2