Mea Culpa: how many times do you want to change your name by deed poll?

John Rentoul on questions of style and usage in last week’s Independent

A man changed his name to ‘Celine Dion’ by deed poll on Christmas Eve (AFP/Getty)

In an article about how the government intends to make it harder for people to change their name, we quoted from a Home Office document which gave the plural of “deed poll” as “deed polls”. Everyone has heard of changing one’s name by deed poll, but few know what it means. So thanks to Peter Elliott for pointing out that “poll” is an adjective, unusually appearing after the noun. It means a legal deed that has been cut, or polled, in two, to provide a copy.  

Strictly, therefore, the plural is “deeds poll”. That would look like a mistake to most people, so I don’t think it matters that we followed the Home Office and used “deed polls” throughout the article. If we wanted to be pedantic (and I usually do), we could have used it in the singular only, and said, for example, that the government intends to “amend the guidance so that only an enrolled deed poll is accepted as proof of a name change”. (An enrolled deed poll being one that has been enrolled, or lodged, with a court.)  

The etymology of “poll” is also interesting. It meant head in Middle English, and then to cut the head off, as in pollard, or simply to cut. Another meaning developed from the counting of heads, or the counting of people or of votes, as in an election or an opinion poll. 

And yes, it does appear to be true that someone who was called Thomas Dodd changed his name to Celine Dion in an act of champagne-fuelled enthusiasm on Christmas Eve. He didn’t need a deed poll because in English law – until the government changes it – you are allowed to call yourself what you want, but he got eight copies of one anyway. 

Plague of men: We got our word order in a right bourach in this headline in the Daily Edition: “Rise in wealth during the pandemic of 10 richest men ‘would pay for vaccines’.” Thanks to Simon Kane for pointing out that we seemed to be reporting an epidemic of rich men. The website version managed to straighten it out: “Rise in wealth of world’s 10 richest men in pandemic would pay for Covid vaccines for everyone.”

Snack and relax: We had a lovely eggcorn in a cricket report last week – an eggcorn being a word or phrase misheard for something just about plausible, such as eggcorn for acorn. We reported: “There was at least some rest bite for Root, who has rivalled the umpires for time on the ground this series.”

Thanks to Owen Jones for pointing out that Joe Root had a respite, “a short period of rest or relief from something difficult”, rather than a sandwich.  

Infringe on top: In an interview with Rashida Tlaib, a member of the US House of Representatives, we said that she “knows far too well how reactionary policies to violence in the US can infringe on civil rights and harm communities that lawmakers sought to protect”. It would be easier to understand if it said “policies made in reaction to violence”, and the convention is that there is no “on” after infringe. You either infringe civil rights or you impinge on them, as Steven Fogel pointed out.