The Who2 Blog

‘Brangelina’ and ‘Frelanor’

Now that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have had their baby, let’s put an end to the tabloid naming of celebrity couples — in this case, Brangelina.

The absurd trend started with Bennifer for Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, and reached its artistic peak with TomKat for Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Brangelina is just grasping at straws.

Alternatively, we could embrace the trend and retroactively name all of history’s famous couples. Queen Victoria and her beloved Prince Albert, after all, are crying out to be called Qbert. It’s cute, it cuts eight syllables down to two, and there’s a video game tie-in.

Wandering back to Roman days, Caesarpatra would be a natural for Julius Caesar and Egyptian minx Cleopatra. (Though Octopatra would have been so much sweeter, if only Caesar’s heir Octavian had gotten into the act.) Once Caesar splits and Marc Antony comes on the scene, we shift to Clantony. (Tossing Cleopatra’s suicide snake into the mix would give us Clasp.)

What was William Shakespeare thinking with a boring title like Romeo and Juliet, when he could have had the short and sexy Julio? (Their helpful friends the Nurse and Friar Laurence could have become the Rolaids.) We might also vote for Joliet, if only so that Illinois could now run ironical ads proclaiming that “Joliet is for Lovers.”

In the 20th century we could have had the brilliant Wedward (as King Edward VIII left the throne to marry Wallis Simpson). In the case of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun, German gossip mags could have speculated right up to the bitter end about “Wedding bells for Edolf?” President and Mrs. Roosevelt could have been Frelanor, while John F. and Jacqueline Kennedy could have been JJBFK.

Why restrict things to lovers? Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson shared rooms at 221b Baker Street. What about Watlock? It’s one short consonant away from arch crimefighter Matlock, after all.

But that would be silly.

Related Biographies

Share this: