MovieChat Forums > Father's Little Dividend (1951) Discussion > Baby no-name

Baby no-name

posted 15 years ago by RRozsa
9 replies | jump to latest

I've always found it amazing that they didn't even give the baby a name until the baby was almost walking (about 6 months old)? What did everyone call him until then, other than "the baby"? Did it take Kay and Buckley that long to decide, or did they just keep it a secret and never say the baby's name until the Christening? I know Kay said they were delaying the Christening because they wanted to wait on the priest to "get back", but was it common in that day not to even call the baby his name until he was Christened? What did they put on birth certificates back then?

Just because I'm distractable doesn't mean I

[–] Zipper69 15 years ago

Yeah, that's a gigantic plot hole that is lost in the humor of the film itself.

Don't touch that!
Why Not?
It does very bad things...

[–] jasschultz 15 years ago

No really, the baby does have a name. They've been saying there going to call him Herbert and then at the Baptism change the name to Stanley.

[–] mathmaniac 7 years ago

I don't remember how this was handled some 25 years ago - but we took our son home and didn't name him for weeks. We just couldn't decide on the right name for him. When we finally named him, it was exactly the perfect name for him (albeit a pretty ordinary name) and we just started calling him that as soon as we decided. I think we had to fill out something? Mail it in? I don't even remember.

Both of my kids were baptized at the same ceremony and both were still in diapers but one was walking. So we waited quite a while for that, too.

[–] KAnnD86 14 years ago

I find this confusing as well. How could he not have a name for so long? I can understand not giving him a middle name until the Baptism or whatever, but was it really common to not name children for that long?

Tomorrow's just your future yesterday!

[–] Steffi_P 13 years ago

Basically the picture was a quick cash-in sequel, written and shot over a short period, so it's simply not a very coherent work.

[–] artistathome 11 years ago

I just watched both movies in one sitting. I have seen both of them many times.
And I just now after watching realized that they named the baby Stanley Banks Dunstan.
No Herbert. And not once in the movie do they even call him a name.

So did they call him The Baby for 6 months?

Talk about a major plot hole. The only thing I can figure is his formal legal name is Stanley Banks but they nicknamed him Herb or Herbie.
Many people are called something other than their name for some strange reason.
Like naming someone John but calling him Jack.

My husband's name is not remotely what his legal name is. His parents named him and then immediately called him a nickname his whole life.
So it happens.

[–] nutinpersonal 11 years ago

Vincent Minnelli is the director and from what I've heard about the man, he doesn't make any movie slap dash.

[–] texastreasure517 8 years ago

Six months seems like a VERY long time to have a baby christened (I assume from the looks of the church, clergy, they are Episcopalians) risking the child passing w/o the sacrament. In those days, especially when it's only one baby and the first grandchild for both sides, it's not uncommon to call it "the baby". I mean, who else are we talking about? The baby! Before my cousin was born, my mother told me a couple of great-aunts had to ask my grandmother "And what did they finally name her?" because people kept calling me "the baby" for an entire year and they forgot!

[–] JillCarrow89 (11) 4 months ago

I grew up Episcopalian (although we call it Anglican in my country) and the ceremony and trappings are completely as I remember. I saw it and thought, oh yeah, Episcopalians 👍.