Board Thread:Off Topic/@comment-27447621-20160730160356/@comment-26397825-20160730233126

In my opinion, some of the explanations are stretchy. Very stretchy.

I'm not discounting that they work. I am of the opinion that to follow the spirit of the CNR properly, the children should have a colour first name or a pun name, which sorta ties into SYUTK's ideas on it. I'd personally prefer if they didn't have such stretchy connections though. One step connections are my personal preference when it comes to these sorts of things (so literally naming your child a name that means sea-faring vessel/ship rather than naming your child the feminine variant of a name that was assigned to an obscure ship in the 18th century).

I do think that in the beginning, some people may have changed their last names rather than changing their first names, and possibly the next generation (so James and Lisa's generation, perhaps) had a higher percentage of children being named after colours, but it wasn't fully integrated into the culture yet. But then by the time Winter's generation came around, it had spread properly and all children were named after colours (this would include Octavia), with a very few who are not (which could possibly cover Octavia in this minority).

So it wasn't an automatic "Every child ever born since this day forth was named after a colour". It's more of a "People started the tradition, with some adults even deciding to change their last names to reflect colours to show their support for the motion. Then as time passed and children were born, more and more of those children were named after colours until eventually it became the norm for children to have colour names, and children without colour names are the very rare exception."

This shows a more believable gradient in naming traditions in my opinion, but still allows for in-world examples of children without colour names to exist.