Classic Names: The Popularity Dilemma

General Name Discussion
1

Hey all! So this thread is mostly to glean people’s opinions about classic names that also happen to be in the Top 100. I love the really stalwart, timeless and traditional names which unfortunately are becoming wildly popular in my native [name_f]Scotland[/name_f], and the UK. Examples of these include [name_f]Rose[/name_f], [name_m]John[/name_m], [name_f]Lucy[/name_f], [name_m]William[/name_m], [name_m]Oliver[/name_m], [name_f]Amelia[/name_f] etc. (Though I was astonished [name_m]John[/name_m] is in the Top 100, and I can say I’ve never met a baby [name_m]John[/name_m]).
What are your opinions on using classic names in the Top 100? Would you ever use a Top 100 name? Or would you abandon such a name, even if it was your favourite?
What are your favourite popular classics, and why would/wouldn’t you use them?

Let’s start a discussion!

2

I pretty much hold the same opinion of popular classics as I do with other popular names; I wouldn’t use them. Classics in particular I find, not only have current popularity to consider, but also past popularity, which is pretty much how I’d define them. Usually I’d be okay with names that were previously popular, but when I’m still hearing them all over the place on adults, they still feel overused and tired, even if not for babies or children. [name_m]John[/name_m] is a pretty good example of that. [name_m]Even[/name_m] though he’s still in the top 100, [name_m]John[/name_m] doesn’t have anywhere near the popularity he once had. But there are so many teenage, adult, fathers, grandfathers, uncle Johns around, it still feels oversaturated. I love [name_f]Sally[/name_f] and [name_f]Jane[/name_f] too, both of which are out of the [name_f]England[/name_f]/[name_m]Wales[/name_m] top 1000, so technically within my ‘would use today threshold’, but at the same time they’re familiar, well known and well used names for adults, and there’s nothing stopping them becoming popular once again.

There are quite a few popular names I love and that I’d enjoy seeing on other people’s children, but personally I wouldn’t use them. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with classics, they are popular for a reason, but I’d rather not use them myself. I think if I really, really loved the name enough, I would forget about my hang ups about popularity and just use it. So far that hasn’t happened yet.

3

I’ve never really let statistical popularity affect names I like - I have [name_f]Emily[/name_f] and [name_f]Abigail[/name_f] on my girls list and they’re #10 and #8 here, and my whole boys list pretty much is classics.

I do find it interesting how many classic names are still popular today though, or ones that seem to have reentered the top 100, as I know fewer and fewer kids with classic names, except for [name_m]Jacob[/name_m], [name_f]Abigail[/name_f] and [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f].

4

some classics explode in popularity over a certain time period. They will become dated as they will be associated with this period of popularity. I would avoid these names.

Other classics hover outside the top ten or beyond and these are more timeless.

Classics I love:
[name_f]Catherine[/name_f]
[name_f]Jane[/name_f]
[name_f]Charlotte[/name_f]
[name_f]Frances[/name_f]
[name_f]Susan[/name_f]
[name_f]Margaret[/name_f]
[name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f]
[name_f]Sophia[/name_f]
[name_f]Isabel[/name_f]
[name_f]Eve[/name_f]
[name_f]Cecilia[/name_f]
[name_f]Lucy[/name_f]
[name_f]Grace[/name_f]

5

I am in the US, but I definitely understand. A lot of classics that I love are in the top 100:
[name_f]Charlotte[/name_f]
[name_f]Sofia[/name_f]/[name_f]Sophia[/name_f]
[name_f]Ella[/name_f]
[name_f]Victoria[/name_f]
[name_f]Lily[/name_f]
[name_f]Nora[/name_f]
[name_f]Audrey[/name_f]
[name_f]Eleanor[/name_f]
[name_f]Julia[/name_f]
[name_f]Katherine[/name_f]

[name_m]Alexander[/name_m]
[name_m]Oliver[/name_m]
[name_m]Daniel[/name_m]
[name_m]Matthew[/name_m]
[name_m]Henry[/name_m]
[name_m]Sebastian[/name_m]
[name_m]Anthony[/name_m]
[name_m]Theodore[/name_m]

As to the question, “Would I still use them?” [name_m]Even[/name_m] thought they’re super popular. Yes. Yes, I would. I would much rather use a name because I love it not because it’s rare. Some of the names I love happen to be rare, but that’s not a priority. No, as long as I don’t know any within my close family, friends, and church, I’m going to use the name I love. For example, I love [name_m]Sebastian[/name_m] for a boy. It’s in the top 100 where I live, but I do not know any so therefore
I see it as perfectly usable. [name_m]William[/name_m], on the other hand, is a great name and
I love it, but I know a little [name_m]William[/name_m] and there are at least four [name_m]Williams[/name_m] in my family. So there I might hesitate. (Diminuatives, like [name_m]Liam[/name_m], or a mn only such as [name_m]Fitzwilliam[/name_m], I find usable, but not the full [name_m]William[/name_m] because it could get confusing with that many people called by the same name. Especially in the extended family.)

In short, popularity doesn’t matter to me. As long as I love the name and I don’t personally know kids by the name…yes.

6

I love this answer! :slight_smile:

7

Two of my longtime favorites [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] and [name_f]Josephine[/name_f] are both in the top 100 in my state and that definitely makes me think twice. I probably would still end up using them but I also really prefer rare names. I’m very divided about it!

8

Yes, I have this problem…names I’ve loved for so long have been creeping up the popularity list. That’s a deal-breaker for me, if only for practical reasons.

Growing up, I knew a lot of [name_m]Laurens[/name_m] and Sarahs who all went by their last initial (and one who went by her middle name at school, just to avoid confusion, even though she went by her first name at home). Of course, there could always be someone with your child’s name in her class, but it’s statistically more likely with the year’s top names.

Top 50 might be OK, but I’d probably toss out anything in the top 20, or any names that seem to be super popular in my circles. If I had my heart set on a name, or it was particularly meaningful to me…well, that might be a different story. Thankfully, there are plenty of names I love outside the top 20.

I think my parents found the sweet spot with my first name. It’s a classic-ish name (not as old as [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] or [name_f]Catherine[/name_f], but still well-established) that was somewhere around No. 120 on the popularity chart the year I was born. So it was familiar, and popular enough that I could find “personalized” knick-knacks with my name, but I was the only one in my grade at school.

9

I couldn’t care less about popularity.

10

Now that I’m on my laptop, I’ll give a little insight into why I think not using a name because it’s statistically too popular is an odd thing to do.

In 1986, this is what the girls top 10 looked like, with the number of births;

  1. [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] (52,688 births)
  2. [name_u]Ashley[/name_u] (49,675 births)
  3. [name_f]Amanda[/name_f] (40,525 births)
  4. [name_f]Jennifer[/name_f] (36,181 births)
  5. [name_f]Sarah[/name_f] (28,152 births)
  6. [name_f]Stephanie[/name_f] (22,644 births)
  7. [name_f]Nicole[/name_f] (21,285 births)
  8. [name_f]Brittany[/name_f] (20,310 births)
  9. [name_f]Heather[/name_f] (19,972 births)
  10. [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] (19,068 births)

Total girls with top 10 name: 310,500 babies.

And here’s 2016;

  1. [name_f]Emma[/name_f] (19,414 births)
  2. [name_f]Olivia[/name_f] (19,246 births)
  3. [name_f]Ava[/name_f] (16,237 births)
  4. [name_f]Sophia[/name_f] (16,070 births)
  5. [name_f]Isabella[/name_f] (14,722 births)
  6. [name_f]Mia[/name_f] (14,366 births)
  7. [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f] (13,030 births)
  8. [name_f]Abigail[/name_f] (11,699 births)
  9. [name_f]Emily[/name_f] (10,926 births)
  10. [name_u]Harper[/name_u] (10,733 births)

Total girls with top 10 name: 146,443 babies.

The difference between 1986 #1 name [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] and 2016 #1 name [name_f]Emma[/name_f] alone is 33,274 births, and 2.12 times as many girls were given top 10 names 30 years ago than today.

To put it into perspective, the position in 1986 that a name with 16,237 births (today’s #3 name, [name_f]Ava[/name_f]) would be around #14 or #15th.

This pattern can be seen pretty consistently over the past decades, here are the number of births for #1 names from 1987-1997;

1987: [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] (55,988 births)
1988: [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] (51,537 births)
1989: [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] (47,882 births)
1990: [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] (46,473 births)
1991: [name_u]Ashley[/name_u] (43,479 births)
1992: [name_u]Ashley[/name_u] (38,453 births)
1993: [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] (34,987 births)
1994: [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] (32,118 births)
1995: [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] (27,934 births)
1996: [name_f]Emily[/name_f] (25,151 births)
1997: [name_f]Emily[/name_f] (25,731 births)

As you can see, a large decrease in the number of girls given the #1 name occurred over this 10 year period.

This has decrease has continued pretty steadily over the last twenty years as the pool of names that parents are choosing from has grown larger and larger.

In 1986, 2.85% of all baby girls in the US were named [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] (#1), 1.52% were named [name_f]Sarah[/name_f] (#5) and 0.9038% were named [name_f]Lauren[/name_f] (#14).

In 2016, the names in first, fifth and fourteenth positions had these percentages;

#1 - [name_f]Emma[/name_f] - 1.0108% (equal to around #11 name in 1986, [name_f]Megan[/name_f])
#5 - [name_f]Isabella[/name_f] 0.7665% (equal to around #20/21 name in 1986, [name_f]Laura[/name_f]/[name_f]Samantha[/name_f])
#14 - [name_f]Sofia[/name_f] - 0.4756% (equal to around #36 name in 1986, [name_u]Andrea[/name_u]).

To summarize: parents who went to school with 5 girls named [name_f]Sarah[/name_f] and 6 [name_m]Laurens[/name_m] were born during a time were 20,000+ Sarahs and [name_m]Laurens[/name_m] were being born yearly. It’s almost uncomparable and somewhat ridiculous to say “I won’t use the name [name_f]Penelope[/name_f] because it’s sitting at #27!!! She’ll be one of two in her class, like the next [name_f]Jessica[/name_f]/[name_f]Lauren[/name_f]/[name_u]Ashley[/name_u]/[name_f]Nicole[/name_f]/[name_u]Courtney[/name_u]/[name_u]Taylor[/name_u]!!”, because really, [name_f]Penelope[/name_f]'s #27 in 2016 is statistically equal to 1986’s #49, [name_f]Maria[/name_f]. - Names simply aren’t being used in the same large numbers they were in our generations, or our parents’, or our grandparents’.

11

Thanks @lawsonhaley for those stats! You have an excellent point about how different today’s popularity is.

To answer the question, if I loved a name I would use it regardless of popularity. Although I usually like unusual names since my last name is so common.

12

Thanks @lawsonhaley for those stats … it can be easy to forget sometimes! While it disappoints me to see many of my long-time favorites creeping into the top 100, ultimately it wouldn’t stop me using the name. [name_u]Jude[/name_u], [name_m]Julian[/name_m], [name_m]Hugo[/name_m], [name_u]Owen[/name_u], [name_u]Theo[/name_u], [name_f]Audrey[/name_f], [name_f]Phoebe[/name_f], [name_f]Hazel[/name_f], [name_f]Thea[/name_f], and [name_f]Harriet[/name_f] are all in the top 100 in my state, and I would use them without hesitation. If they entered the top 10 I might think differently, but if I loved it enough possibly not.