If Madison and Morgan, why not Clare and Carol?

Boy Names
1

The recent questions about the use of [name]Madison[/name] and [name]Morgan[/name] on boys today got me curious. What about other boy’s names that have “gone girl”? It was interesting to look at the popularity of different names and notice that [name]Morgan[/name] is actually currently more popular for boys than it has been in the last 130 years in the US. But over the same time [name]Clare[/name] and [name]Carol[/name] have been actually just as popular for boys as [name]Madison[/name].

[name]Carol[/name] peaked for boys in 1937 ranked at #323 for boys (while at #6 for girls).
[name]Clare[/name] peaked for boys in 1893 ranked at 459, ahead of the girls at 500 the same year.
[name]Morgan[/name] peaked for boys in around 1995 (Number 236) and in the earlier part of the 1900s was around the same or less popular than [name]Carol[/name].
[name]Madison[/name] peaked at around 307 for boys in 1881, but otherwise was generally less popular than [name]Clare[/name] or [name]Carol[/name] for boys in the first half of the 1900s.

So… as my question says, if [name]Madison[/name] and [name]Morgan[/name], why not [name]Clare[/name] and [name]Carol[/name], because I do think that there is a perception that if someone said let’s use [name]Carol[/name] or [name]Clare[/name] on a boy they would get a different response than they did for [name]Morgan[/name] and [name]Madison[/name].

What do others think?

2

Because [name]Clare[/name] and [name]Carol[/name] have softer, more vowelly sounds. Where as [name]Madison[/name] and [name]Morgan[/name] are mostly consonant-like, and firmer.

It has little to nothing to do with the rankings.
Also, you mentioned that [name]Carol[/name] was #6 for girls at the same time as #323 for boys. That means it was already viewed as primarily female name.

3

You say rankings don’t matter but then make reference to rankings. In any case, if that argument works to exclude [name]Carol[/name] from being a potential name for boys, then surely the same applies to [name]Madison[/name].

4

I wonder if people say that because [name]Clare[/name] and [name]Carol[/name] are similar to popular feminine names like [name]Clara[/name], [name]Claire[/name] and [name]Caroline[/name]. They’re similar to the masculine [name]Clarence[/name] and [name]Carolus[/name], but no one has heard those names in a while. I suppose that they “went to the girls” far earlier than [name]Madison[/name] and [name]Morgan[/name] factors in, too. [name]Carol[/name] has the downside of not being especially fashionable for either gender right now. [name]Madison[/name] has the –son ending on its side; [name]Morgan[/name] has stayed fairly popular for boys with a male celebrity holding the name. [name]Even[/name] though [name]Madison[/name] is kind of like [name]Madeline[/name] and [name]Morgan[/name] is kind of like [name]Megan[/name]. These are all just guesses, really.
It is possible that one day [name]Madison[/name] and [name]Morgan[/name] may be viewed like [name]Clare[/name] and [name]Carol[/name] and we just don’t know it yet. I wonder how people really would respond to [name]Clare[/name] / [name]Carol[/name] on a boy; maybe you have shown an inconsistency in the arguments of traditionalists who say [name]Madison[/name] and [name]Morgan[/name] are only for boys?

5

It’s better to look at the number of births than the rankings…

To answer your question, there’s no reason Clare and Carol can’t be used on a boy. I’ve known guys named Sinclair (which, yeah, isn’t quite Clare) and Carroll. They might get a few giggles during roll call on the first day of school, but they aren’t doomed to a life of shame because they have names that have “gone girl.”

I started the Madison thread. Like I said there, my male cousin is named Madison and he doesn’t get any flack for his name. It confuses me as to why members of this site will go into fits when someone is considering something like Elliot for a girl, yet names like Asa and Ira are dismissed for being too “feminine” and people coil away in fright at the idea of Ashley and Harper on a boy.

ETA: That said, for me this issue isn’t about reclaiming every name that has ever been used on a male and that is now more commonly used on a female. That would be futile. I just wanted thoughts/reactions to Madison on a boy.

6

I know a male [name]Carol[/name] in his 30s. I’ve also encountered a male [name]Shannon[/name] and male [name]Kimberly[/name].

Yes there are likely going to be the same assumptions and initial mistakes as a girl named [name]Ryan[/name] or whatnot, but I don’t think they’re off limits. It’s all in how the child wears the name and the confidence both parent and child have in it. I don’t think because a name “goes girl” it can’t stay unisex. I wouldn’t be totally shocked to see some names (like [name]Morgan[/name]) circle back around.

7

I would be perfectly fine with [name]Clare[/name], [name]Carol[/name], [name]Morgan[/name] or [name]Madison[/name] being used for a boy. In fact, [name]Morgan[/name] is one of my top boys names.

8

[name]Karol[/name] Wojtyla was the real name of the late Pope [name]John[/name] [name]Paul[/name] II. [name]Karol[/name] is the Polish form of [name]Charles[/name] and [name]Karel[/name] is the Dutch and both are widely used in Europe. [name]Carroll[/name] O’[name]Connor[/name] was [name]Archie[/name] Bunker on TV for years. Since County [name]Clare[/name] is a place name in [name]Ireland[/name] it’s technically unisex.

9

I’d assume [name]Clare[/name]/[name]Claire[/name] and [name]Carol/name were female, but [name]Clair[/name] and [name]Caroll[/name]/[name]Karel[/name]/[name]Karol[/name] I’d assume male.

[name]Clare[/name] is the English female form of the name, while [name]Clair[/name] is the more common masculine form (from the French. St [name]Clair[/name], [name]Sinclair[/name] are also well documented as given names in English). [name]Clair[/name] remained in the US top 1000 as a male name until the mid-1960s, and there’s no real reason why it couldn’t come back. I think it works on either gender, but I do prefer the [name]Clair[/name] spelling on a boy (much as I prefer [name]Francis[/name] on a man and [name]Frances[/name] on a woman, but nobody made that distinction in English until the 19th century).

[name]Carol[/name] I do think of as female in English, I think partly because of the word ‘carol’, and partly because [name]Carol[/name] has been used very intensely as a female name for a very long time. Sure, it became popular as a woman’s name in the 30s and 40s and 50s, but it was used as a female name before that (albeit a rare one).

The other factor here (and I think this might answer your larger question) is that [name]Carol[/name] was a top-50 name in the US for 40 years, during a time when most babies were given a top-50 name. When [name]Carol[/name] was #5 in 1945, more than 2% of baby girls born that year were called [name]Carol[/name]; in 1968 when [name]Carol[/name] was #49, almost half of a percent of girls were given that name. [name]Madison[/name] peaked at 1 percent in 2002; last year, although it was still a top-10 name, just over half of one percent of baby girls were called [name]Madison[/name]. So a much higher proportion of the female population has been named [name]Carol[/name] than will ever be named [name]Madison[/name], [name]Morgan[/name], or [name]Avery[/name], meaning that personal and cultural references for [name]Carol[/name] (and [name]Beverly[/name], [name]Shirley[/name], and [name]Leslie[/name]) will be more female than they are for some of the newer ‘crossover’ names. That said, [name]Caroll[/name] and [name]Carroll[/name] read male to me, and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear more male Carrolls 20 years from now.

[name]Shirley[/name] and [name]Beverly[/name] might be permanently girls’ name, but I think [name]Clair[/name], [name]Karel[/name], [name]Robin[/name], [name]Morgan[/name], [name]Cary[/name], [name]Aubrey[/name] and many others are entirely wearable on a man. [name]Douglas[/name], which was originally a woman’s name, I think is permanently a man’s name now (just to give an example from the other side!).

[name]Philip[/name]/[name]Phillip[/name]/[name]Philipp[/name], [name]Benet[/name]/[name]Bennet[/name]/[name]Benett[/name] ([name]Benedict[/name]), [name]Franci[/name]/es, [name]Christian[/name]/[name]Christen[/name], and [name]Julian[/name] (primarily female) were all unisex names in [name]Britain[/name] for centuries. What would you think of parents of girls with those names now?

10

Sure, I don’t see why not. [name]Carroll[/name] O’[name]Connor[/name] seemed to do well. (I know it’s a slightly different spelling variation, but the sound is the same) [name]Clare[/name] could work too; it looks like a shortened form of [name]Clarence[/name].

11

They don’t. I mention them only because you did.
Also note, it was to show you that [name]Carol[/name] was already considered a female name since MORE girls were named it than boys that year. It’s not the actually ranking number that means anything. The numbers have a 317 difference in ranking, which would explain why [name]Carol[/name]'s more “female” nowadays than male. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of girls were named it over boys.

12

I know a man named [name]Carol[/name] but I can’t picture one named [name]Claire[/name].

13

I think a lot of it has to do with time; [name]Clare[/name] and [name]Carol[/name] have been used more often as girl names for quite awhile. [name]Madison[/name] and [name]Morgan[/name] are relative newcomers, which I think makes it easier to still view them as unisex. In thirty years, they may not be viewed that way anymore, or they might have gone back to being used primarily for boys, like [name]Logan[/name], [name]Ryan[/name], and [name]Jordan[/name].

14

Yeah, I think the datedness factor is in play here. People don’t really consider [name]Carol[/name] for girls right now, so it’s probably not seeing much use for boys. Not sure about [name]Clare[/name]/[name]Clair[/name]. But it’s an interesting point : D.