So I’m starting to fall in love with [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] but the comments on it’s page are less then kind. Is it awful?
I think it’s chic as heck on the right person.
I agree with op: it’s a high risk, high reward name!
I just went to check on [name_f]Agatha[/name_f]'s name page and wow! Some people on there are incredibly dramatic. One would swear they were discussing naming one’s child Beelzebub, I actually don’t think I’ve seen such harsh comments on a regular name before. While [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] isn’t to my tastes, there is certainly nothing “hideous or vile” about it! Much better than [name_f]Agnes[/name_f] in my opinion and less clunky. Sure it might be considered an old lady name but I think it could be really cute on a modern little girl! I genuinely don’t understand the vitriolic hate for it. And I’m extremely picky with names.
In short, if it’s a name that you truly love and it makes you happy and you would feel honoured to give it to your baby girl then go for it!
I’m not a fan of the sound at all, which is strange because I do like [name_f]Agata[/name_f]. It’s probably one of those names that will come back into fashion at some point.
People in the comment sections are inclined to use strong and overly emotive language to get their opinion across, which is more pronounced since there’s no measuring a name and impartially concluding “yes, this name is 3cm bad”. So many commenters’ reactions to [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] are probably exaggerated.
I can’t say I hate it or have any particular strong feelings about it, but it’s a lot of name. I would definitely put it in the clunky category. It’s not that it’s unusable or ugly or necessarily tease-able. I just don’t know if every personality is going to rock [name_f]Agatha[/name_f]. But that’s not true just for “old lady” names. Frilly femme names, trendy nature ones, etc. are all a gamble in terms of suiting and being liked by the person. I agree with the “high risk, high reward” notion. It’s a daring name that could be totally cool and charismatic. It also might not be. If not, well, [name_f]Aggie[/name_f] is tame enough.
Not to diminish the use of [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] on a girl, but I think it would be such a great cat name lol.
I looove it and begged my SO to add it to our list but he wasn’t a fan. I think it’s beautiful.
I would put it in the clunky cool category, with [name_f]Beatrice[/name_f], [name_f]Ruth[/name_f] and [name_f]Maude[/name_f]
[name_u]Love[/name_u] it!
Similar to [name_f]Martha[/name_f] in my mind
To add on to my previous reply, if you do decide on [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] as a first name, I would suggest to pair it with a more tame middle name. Since as PP’s have mentioned, it is “a lot of name”, having a less polarizing middle would give options if the little one grew up to feel like [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] was a bit too much for her
Not for me, sounds harsh
I used to really dislike this name. Then I read a book with [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] as one of the protagonists. She’s one of my favourite characters and so now the name is starting to grow on me!
Nope, [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] is not hideous. I honestly don’t see much of a difference between [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] and some of the popular names on nameberry: [name_f]Edith[/name_f], [name_f]Margaret[/name_f], [name_f]Iris[/name_f], [name_f]Margo[/name_f], [name_f]Dorothy[/name_f], [name_f]Eleanor[/name_f], [name_f]Agnes[/name_f]… They are clunky and not my style, but totally acceptable and certainly not heinous.
It’s one of the few vintage names I really like. I think [name_f]Aggie[/name_f] is really cute too.
I totally agree with @eloiset’s “high risk, high reward” comment – bang on!
I personally really like [name_f]Agatha[/name_f], though it’s a little too old-fashioned/vintage for my personal style (the same goes for plenty of other vintage names popular on this site, like [name_f]Edith[/name_f], [name_f]Winifred[/name_f], [name_f]Marigold[/name_f], [name_f]Sybil[/name_f], etc.) I actually think the sound is pretty soft and gentle, despite the hard [name_f]Ag[/name_f]- beginning – a bit like [name_f]Tabitha[/name_f], which I also really like. The “th” sound seems to be very popular at the moment, so I don’t think it’s too out-of-step with current trends.
I believe there was a poster around here recently with a daughter called [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] [name_f]Daisy[/name_f]. That, to me, is a perfect way to deal with a divisively clunky name like [name_f]Agatha[/name_f]: balance it with a sweet, fresh middle that still marries well with the first name in terms of sound and style. Inspired by your signature, something like [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] [name_f]Goldie[/name_f], [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] [name_f]Esme[/name_f], [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] [name_f]Birdie[/name_f], [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] [name_f]Kate[/name_f], [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] [name_f]Maeve[/name_f] or [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] [name_f]Sylvie[/name_f] could work really well.
For me [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] is in the category of “old-fashioned names that never really made a comeback”. I don’t think it’s hideous, but I feel it’s a bit too clunky and consonant-heavy to appeal to many parents in the “liquid name” era, and that’s probably why it has so many negative comments.
I really love this name, and I agree with @nicoleamanda “it’s chic as heck on the right person” and @eloiset “it’s a high risk, high reward name”. It is clunky and maybe a bit of a mouthful, but in my opinion [name_f]Agatha[/name_f] would be a really awesome name on someone 
I used to think that it was the ugliest name ever, but it has really grown on me. I agree that the right person can pull it off. Also, it has the bonus of the cute nickname [name_f]Aggie[/name_f].
I really like [name_f]Agatha[/name_f].
I really like it and it’s on the shortlist for #2! The only thing that puts me off is the vitriolic hatred some people seem to have for it, but everyone I’ve mentioned it to in real life (in the UK) who has generally more mainstream taste than me had a super positive response.