I’ve been seeing on the boards lately some emphasis on finding/using “down-to-earth” names. I’m a bit confused about this.
What is classed as a “down-to-earth” name and what isn’t?
I’ve seen examples of [name_f]Frances[/name_f] being more “d-t-e” than the like of [name_f]Francesca[/name_f]. Is it frilly names that are extravagant to the point of being not “D-T-E”?
Does anyone have any insites or opinions towards this? Or examples?
For me it isn’t frilly names that are not d-t-e, but rather names that sound like they really belong in a book. Names that seem unapproachable or strange. It’s really more about comfort level I think. Clinging to more what you are use to and feeling like some names are too exotic, or just too much. Something you’d have a hard time taking seriously. For example…
[name_f]Penelope[/name_f] to me looks like a lot of name, but I don’t think most people would call it frilly, more spunky. But for me it’s just too much. There are sounds in the name that are just not spoken often, and so it sounds foreign to my ears, and weird in my mouth.
[name_f]Agnes[/name_f] is a popular name here, definitely not a frilly name. I feel that this name is way over the top. Someone found out vintage names were stylish, and so they found the most awkward sounding name, again one that has sounds not often spoken, and said, “Hey ya’ll, I’m brave enough to use this.” It tries way too hard [name_f]IMO[/name_f]. For me, this is not a down to earth name.
[name_f]Hope[/name_f] that helps some. 
I think of down-to-earth being names that require no explanation at all.
Doesn’t have to be top ten or anything, but ones that are not at all controversial, foreign, or wacky. Nothing that makes people wonder WHY you’d do that. I don’t think [name_f]Frances[/name_f] quite counts actually as I’d put retro/clunkies in a separate category. It is less frilly than [name_f]Francesca[/name_f] but I think of down-to-earth not even being old-fashioned, exactly, even though some have quite a lot of history behind them.
[name_f]Claire[/name_f], [name_f]Jane[/name_f], [name_f]Nora[/name_f], [name_f]Grace[/name_f], [name_f]Alice[/name_f], [name_f]Hannah[/name_f]. Doesn’t have to be straight up C/[name_f]Katherine[/name_f] and [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] though I consider those down-to-earth too by virtue of being so utterly evergreen.
Not every classic name counts, in my book. [name_f]Cecilia[/name_f], [name_f]Genevieve[/name_f], and [name_f]Annabel[/name_f] are certainly historic/classic/beautiful but none of them are DTE to me. And DTE and granny-chic are different - [name_f]Emily[/name_f] is DTE, [name_f]Hazel[/name_f] is granny chic. [name_m]Plenty[/name_m] of grandma Emilys floating around, but it doesn’t say “look how out-of-the-box my parents are!”
This is just my interpretation/thoughts. It’s only my two cents.
Everyone has a different idea of down-to-earth, I think, so it’s hard to narrow it down! I personally see down-to-earth names as those for which I picture a person with them being down-to-earth, approachable etc. so it’s nothing to do with the names themselves, I find! But in general, ‘frilly’ names aren’t (in my opinion), and neither are all classics necessarily. It just depends for me.
[name_f]Cecily[/name_f] [name_f]Amabel[/name_f] vs. [name_f]Celia[/name_f] [name_f]Alice[/name_f]
They’re both beautiful with a similar style, but the first is over the top quirky, bold in a ‘look at me!’ kind of way. The second is far more humble, less in-your-face, she would fit in anywhere without a fuss.
People tend to think that names which aren’t so DTE are trying too hard to be unusual or interesting. I don’t think either one is better. I like to find a balance.
I think of down-to-earth names as ones that won’t make people look at your child like they’ve just sprouted a second head when they introduce themselves. Like sure, naming your daughter Clytemnestra might sound great in theory, but the reaction when they introduce themselves is going to be more along the lines of “Really?!” than it will “Nice to meet you!”
I don’t think naming their kid [name_f]Agnes[/name_f] over say, [name_f]Alice[/name_f] isn’t being down-to-earth (not calling out anyone, just using a previous example!). [name_f]Agnes[/name_f] is still a name with a lot of historical use, it’s familiar to most people even if they’ve never met one, it’s usable. Some of the names that get tossed around this board, frankly, are not.
In my opinion, and from what I’ve seen on this website, a DTE name is a name like [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f]. [name_f]Elspeth[/name_f] might be a little too out there or unconventional, and not conservative, thus, by many, not DTE.
Down To [name_f]Earth[/name_f] Names:
[name_f]Melanie[/name_f]
[name_f]Natalie[/name_f]
[name_f]Nora[/name_f]
[name_f]Grace[/name_f]
[name_f]Anna[/name_f]
[name_u]Ashley[/name_u]
[name_f]Emma[/name_f]
[name_f]Margaret[/name_f]
[name_f]Chloe[/name_f]
[name_f]Annabelle[/name_f]
[name_f]Juliette[/name_f]
[name_f]Alexandra[/name_f]
[name_f]Josephine[/name_f]
[name_f]Faith[/name_f]
[name_f]Dawn[/name_f]
[name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]
Unconventional or not so down to earth:
[name_f]Junia[/name_f]
[name_f]Violetta[/name_f]
Libba
[name_f]Magdalena[/name_f]
[name_f]Coralie[/name_f]
[name_f]Zandra[/name_f]
[name_u]Peyton[/name_u]
[name_f]Inga[/name_f]
@liana - I think I was the one who said that I prefer down-to-earth [name_f]Frances[/name_f] to the frilly and feminine [name_f]Francesca[/name_f]. Everyone has their own definition of the term “down-to-earth” but here is mine.
“Down-to-earth” names are those that are simple in style, no frills and without pretension. I imagine a friendly, girl or boy-next-door type wearing them. These names are warm, sensible and solid with a quiet, understated appeal. They’re cozy and reliable. They may not be the most exciting group but these people are salt-of-the-earth individuals who are the adults of the world. These names can be worn by all ages because they grow up well. They don’t try to impress people with creativity and style because they are who they are and are proud of it. I love them because they’re comfortable in their skin, they’re durable, clean and so timeless they can withstand any fashion trend. They show that you can make a strong statement without hitting people over the head. They make the world a better place because they’re in it. They’re the epitome of the term “less is more”. These names last a lifetime 
Girl Examples: [name_f]Frances[/name_f], [name_f]Claire[/name_f]/[name_f]Clara[/name_f], [name_f]Grace[/name_f], [name_f]Tess[/name_f], [name_f]Jane[/name_f], [name_f]Molly[/name_f], [name_f]Gwen[/name_f], [name_f]Anna[/name_f]/[name_f]Anne[/name_f]/[name_f]Hannah[/name_f], [name_f]Faye[/name_f], [name_f]Helen[/name_f], [name_f]Audrey[/name_f], [name_f]Mary[/name_f], [name_f]Kate[/name_f], [name_f]Eve[/name_f]/[name_f]Eva[/name_f], [name_f]Ruth[/name_f], [name_f]Margot[/name_f], [name_f]Bridget[/name_f], [name_f]Alice[/name_f], [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f], [name_f]Elaine[/name_f], [name_f]Sarah[/name_f], [name_f]Laura[/name_f], [name_u]Julie[/name_u]/[name_f]Julia[/name_f], [name_f]Lucy[/name_f]
Boy Examples: [name_m]Jack[/name_m], [name_u]Charlie[/name_u], [name_m]Will[/name_m], [name_m]Ben[/name_m], [name_m]Thomas[/name_m], [name_m]Jake[/name_m]/[name_m]Jacob[/name_m], [name_m]Adam[/name_m], [name_u]Sam[/name_u]/[name_m]Samuel[/name_m], [name_u]Max[/name_u], [name_m]George[/name_m], [name_m]John[/name_m]/[name_m]Johnny[/name_m], [name_m]Frank[/name_m]/[name_u]Francis[/name_u], [name_u]Laurence[/name_u], [name_m]Peter[/name_m], [name_m]Walt[/name_m]/[name_m]Walter[/name_m], [name_m]Joe[/name_m]/[name_m]Joseph[/name_m], [name_m]Grant[/name_m], [name_m]Henry[/name_m], [name_m]Ike[/name_m]/[name_m]Isaac[/name_m], [name_m]Leo[/name_m]
I’d say any timeless classic ([name_f]Catherine[/name_f], [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f], [name_f]Claire[/name_f], [name_f]Alice[/name_f], [name_f]Emma[/name_f], [name_f]Emily[/name_f], [name_f]Eleanor[/name_f], [name_f]Hannah[/name_f], [name_f]Anne[/name_f], [name_f]Jane[/name_f], [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f], etc) would be ‘down-to-earth’. Anything with no frills, and a classic, recognisable feel.
In my perception, the most down-to-earth names are comfortable and hard to dislike. Often nicknames fit the bill- [name_m]Will[/name_m], [name_f]Kate[/name_f], [name_f]Sadie[/name_f], and [name_m]Joe[/name_m] seem very down-to-earth to me. Also shorter, frill-less classics or modern classics: [name_f]Anna[/name_f], [name_m]Michael[/name_m], [name_u]Ryan[/name_u], [name_u]Aubrey[/name_u]. The longer classics are a toss-up; I think they’re usually kind of close to fitting in the genre. It gets a little subjective, but I’d say [name_f]Claire[/name_f]'s sustained common-ness and simple sound make it more down to earth than a name like [name_f]Cordelia[/name_f] that could be considered a classic but is a bit frillier and less popular.
To me, it’s not the most exciting genre of name, but it is one of the least divisive- it’s hard to dislike a down-to-earth name, and no one will think any names in this genre are an outrageous choice. They’re very relatable, solid names- I tend to like them!
@mischa - I didn’t mean to single you out but I wanted to know what the meaning behind it was. Your explanation is pretty spot on to what I was thinking it meant. I don’t think DTE names are a bad thing just more plain or common (and not really my style.)
@daisy451 - yes I agree with DTE names being not the most exciting of names, but are classic and not pretentious.