[name]Jane[/name] is a little plain for my taste. I have no idea why because I love [name]Anne[/name], [name]Elle[/name], [name]Paige[/name], etc…but [name]Jane[/name] doesn’t do it for me.
As a middle name, [name]Jane[/name] is fabulous. I prefer it to the overdone [name]Marie[/name] or [name]Rose[/name]. But I love frilly four-syllable names so much more. This is coming from someone who has [name]Atlas[/name] and [name]Marigold[/name] on her list but would love to [name]Alice[/name] as a middle name.
I don’t think [name]Jane[/name] is plain at all. I love it.
[name]Love[/name] [name]Jane[/name]! So classic and elegant.
Some of my current favorite combos:
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Aurora[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Aurelia[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Cordelia[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Cecily[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Beatrix[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Felicity[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Margaret[/name]
Classic, simple, elegant. Doesn’t get any better than that.
I think it’s lovely, refined and bold in its simplicity. Much more confidence inspiring in my mind than the frilly over the top names with syllables thrown left and right 
There’s something about the name that makes me think of a girl/woman who is comfortable in her own skin, “I’m [name]Jane[/name]. I am who I am, and this is me!”
It’s almost a one word sentence, a statement, which is very cool to me.
I have some frilly names on my list, but i can totally appreciate the purely lovely [name]Jane[/name]. 
(And [name]Janey[/name] is a fantastic diminuitive for a little one, too)
I love [name]Jane[/name]. It needs a really pretty middle name though.
I love [name]Jane[/name]. It doesn’t seem plain at all to me. It conjures images of a strong, intelligent, independent woman to me.
I love [name]Jane[/name] enough to have used it. It’s my two-year-old’s name. And her older sister is named [name]Alice[/name]. So there’s my answer to your question about which sibling names go best with it. Her nickname is [name]Janie[/name], and she has a fancier middle name. Her full name is [name]Jane[/name] [name]Beatrice[/name], which suits her very well since she’s kind of a prissy little thing. I think [name]Jane[/name] [name]Marigold[/name] would make a gorgeous combination.
I obviously have heard the “plain [name]Jane[/name]” thing and I understand that some people might consider it too simple and boring. But it’s not very common at all. I am meeting new babies named [name]Alice[/name] all the time, but [name]Jane[/name]? Not one yet.
I checked the SSA statistics in [name]America[/name] going back to 1880. I was shocked to see that [name]Jane[/name] peaked in 1946 at #35! She hasn’t been in the Top 100 in the UK for at least 10 years, and she’s not on any list I can find for the top 10 names in the UK going back 100 years.
As for “[name]Dick[/name] and [name]Jane[/name]”, this reminds me of sayings like “[name]Tom[/name], [name]Dick[/name], and [name]Harry[/name]” – I don’t know a single [name]Tom[/name], [name]Dick[/name], OR [name]Harry[/name]. [name]Dick[/name] is virtually unusable, [name]Thomas[/name] is #46, and [name]Harry[/name] is in the 700s (despite the success of Mr. [name]Potter[/name]). I also don’t know any Johns my age (only one [name]Jon[/name], short for [name]Jonathan[/name]). It feels that names like [name]John[/name] and [name]Mary[/name] (and, yes, [name]Jane[/name]) are stereotyped as being ubiquitous, when in fact they are much rarer than we seem to think. In [name]Jane[/name]'s case, it seems like she’s been at least a little unusual for the last 100 years!
The question is, can a name be plain AND unusual? Hm. I tend to think of [name]Ada[/name] as being plain, and she’s #494…but how does [name]Ada[/name] qualify as plain when, as you say, [name]Ava[/name] doesn’t? Two syllables, ends with ‘a’ – why does [name]Ada[/name] seem so dull to me? Perhaps it’s the thud of a ‘d’ in the middle, instead of a breezy ‘v’. But then, [name]Jane[/name] has that trendy ‘J’, and the trendier ‘ay’ sound in the middle (which [name]Ada[/name] and [name]Ava[/name] share). Again, it could be [name]Jane[/name]'s perceived datedness, but with [name]Olivia[/name], [name]Sadie[/name], and [name]Florence[/name] having a renaissance and [name]Pearl[/name] a starbaby favorite, granny names are in vogue right now. So what is it about [name]Jane[/name]? She seems to be unique in that there’s a true cognitive dissonance between the perception of this name (plain, common, dated) and the reality (unusual, trendy sound, never in the Top 10).
I think the reason may be that [name]Jane[/name] actually peaked way earlier than we think, and had an uncommonly long reign. [name]Jane[/name], like fellow antique chic name [name]Walter[/name], was extremely popular in the Middle Ages right through the [name]Golden[/name] Age. She was brought over to [name]America[/name] with the colonists. Because [name]Jane[/name] is so old, she spawned many, many variations – I would venture to say that there are more variations on [name]Jane[/name] currently in use in English than there are of [name]John[/name]. There’s [name]Joan[/name], [name]Joanne[/name], [name]Jean[/name], [name]Jeanne[/name], [name]Janet[/name], [name]Janice[/name], [name]Janine[/name], [name]Janelle[/name]…and probably more. Many of the listed variations have in fact been far more popular over the last 100 years than [name]Jane[/name].
Perhaps we think [name]Jane[/name] is plain because she’s the root of so many other names that have eclipsed her in usage. She’s the root of dozens of elaborations – making [name]Jane[/name] not elaborate, and thus, plain!
Thinking about it like that actually makes me love [name]Jane[/name] more. She’s bedrock, the foundation of a whole village of names. In this age of endless, meaningless elaborations like [name]Caden[/name], [name]Bradin[/name], and [name]Jayden[/name] and [name]Miley[/name], [name]Kylee[/name], and [name]Ryleigh[/name], I really like the idea of a name that is its own purest form. Pure - not plain! I love your idea of [name]Jane[/name] as the ‘little black dress’ of names. So true! As proved by her metamorphoses throughout history, [name]Jane[/name] is the last word in versatile. Figuring this “plain [name]Jane[/name]” mystery out has given me a new appreciation for [name]Jane[/name]…and bumped her up a few spaces in my Top 10.
Your daughters are fabulously named – though of course I would think that, since I obviously adore [name]Alice[/name] and [name]Jane[/name] (and [name]LOVE[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Beatrice[/name]!). It’s fascinating to me that these names seem so evenly matched (they even share a similar arc of popularity, are both literary, AND both have their roots in the Middle Ages), yet [name]Alice[/name] is, as you say, everywhere, while [name]Jane[/name] seems to be seen rarely if ever on anyone under 18.
This is making [name]Jane[/name] rather difficult for me in terms of how she would fit into a sibset. Obviously [name]Jane[/name] and [name]Alice[/name] seem perfect together, even though one is so much more popular. But what would [name]Jane[/name]'s other brothers and sisters be named? Should I stick to other names that were popular between the medieval period and the 1700s, or go eclectic bohemian chic and pair [name]Jane[/name] with [name]Dove[/name] and [name]Hero[/name]? Hm.
I love everything you’ve said here. You described exactly how [name]Jane[/name] sounds to me: simple, pure, and somehow imbued with self-confidence. And I really like [name]Janie[/name]. 
My mum’s called [name]Jane[/name] and I would love to honour her by using [name]Jane[/name] as a middle name for a future daughter of mine.
I think it’s beautiful! Not plain at all! I know a [name]Jane[/name] aged around 19/20 and it’s really fresh on her because it’s always seen as an older woman’s name. It’s super sophisticated on her.
Sisters of [name]Jane[/name]:
~ [name]Elizabeth[/name] / [name]Eliza[/name]
~ [name]Alice[/name]
~ [name]Agnes[/name]
~ [name]Catherine[/name] / [name]Katherine[/name] (nickname: [name]Katie[/name])
~ [name]Ellen[/name]
~ [name]Edith[/name] (nickname: [name]Edie[/name])
~ [name]Eleanor[/name] (nickname: [name]Ellie[/name])
~ [name]Frances[/name] (nickname: [name]Fran[/name])
~ [name]Beatrice[/name] (nickname: [name]Bea[/name])
~ [name]Bridget[/name]
~ [name]Constance[/name] (nickname: [name]Connie[/name])
~ [name]Florence[/name] (nickname: [name]Flo[/name])
~ [name]Grace[/name]
~ [name]Helen[/name]
~ [name]Laura[/name]
~ [name]Lucy[/name]
~ [name]Mable[/name]
~ [name]Martha[/name]
~ [name]Matilda[/name]
~ [name]Prudence[/name] (nickname: [name]Pru[/name])
~ [name]Rebecca[/name] (nickname: [name]Becky[/name])
~ [name]Tabitha[/name]
Brothers of [name]Jane[/name]:
~ [name]Thomas[/name] (nickname: [name]Tom[/name])
~ [name]William[/name] / [name]Wilfred[/name] (nickname: [name]Will[/name] / [name]Freddie[/name])
~ [name]Richard[/name]
~ [name]Robert[/name] (nickname: [name]Robbie[/name])
~ [name]Henry[/name]
~ [name]George[/name]
~ [name]Edward[/name] / [name]Edmund[/name] / [name]Edwin[/name] (nickname: [name]Eddie[/name])
~ [name]Nicholas[/name] (nickname: [name]Nick[/name])
~ [name]Christopher[/name] (nickname: [name]Chris[/name])
~ [name]Ralph[/name]
~ [name]Archibald[/name] (nickname: [name]Archie[/name])
~ [name]Arthur[/name]
~ [name]Benjamin[/name] (nickname: [name]Ben[/name])
~ [name]Charles[/name] (nickname: [name]Charlie[/name])
~ [name]Gregory[/name] (nickname: [name]Greg[/name])
~ [name]Harry[/name]
~ [name]Joshua[/name] (nickname: [name]Josh[/name])
~ [name]Oliver[/name] (nickname: [name]Ollie[/name])
~ [name]Tobias[/name] (nickname: [name]Toby[/name])
(All English names used during the late 16th century)
There is a great blog post on the little black dress topic. [name]Jane[/name] is of course on the list along with [name]Alice[/name] and other gems. It’s nearly 5 years old now, but it’s my favorite blog post ever.
I love [name]Jane[/name]. I’m [name]Kate[/name] and I feel like [name]Jane[/name] is very much in the same category with [name]Kate[/name], [name]Jack[/name], [name]Anne[/name], [name]Tess[/name], and [name]Lucy[/name]. I think [name]Jane[/name] is perfect and unexpected for a little girl. I do worry, however about what it would be like to wear [name]Jane[/name] as an adult. Would you feel pressured to be dependable and responsible? Could you be your own person? Would people look past you? I’m reminded of the movie 27 Dresses where the main character is the responsible, doormat older sister to her wild and selfish younger sister [name]Tess[/name].
So excited about this post!
I love, love, love, love, love the name [name]Jane[/name]! It’s my middle name, my mum’s middle name and my late grandma’s favourite name. [name]Jane[/name] oozes elegance and grace. I think the she looks understand and simple against her elaborations not boring. If I came across a baby [name]Jane[/name] I would be surprised and delighted whereas a baby [name]Janelle[/name] I would simply think 1980s-1990s. I also think [name]Jane[/name] works as a stand alone name and doesn’t need to be a hang on to something like [name]Mary[/name] or [name]Sarah[/name]. However I do love [name]Winter[/name] [name]Jane[/name] and [name]Jane[/name] [name]Winter[/name], I prefer [name]Jane[/name] [name]Winter[/name] just because [name]Jane[/name] deserves a first name slot.
On my forever changing name list I have: [name]Jane[/name] [name]Elizabeth[/name] [name]Laura[/name] (all three names are family names)
Suggestions for you:
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Eleanora[/name] [name]Rae[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Christiana[/name] [name]Leighton[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Vivienne[/name] [name]Coral[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Colette[/name] [name]Maia[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]Carlotta[/name] [name]Austen[/name]
I think personally [name]Jane[/name]'s hey-day may have past but so have most of the other names that are being revived I don’t think ten years ago we’d be flooded with people wanting to name their children [name]Theodore[/name], [name]Hugo[/name], [name]Arthur[/name], [name]Verity[/name], [name]Clara[/name] & [name]Felicity[/name]. Ten years ago it was [name]Peyton[/name], [name]Summer[/name], [name]Mackenzie[/name] and [name]Ben[/name]. Fashions change. Furthermore even though [name]Jane[/name] was never used as a first name it’s always been used as a middle so I actually believe [name]Jane[/name] has a become a pretty filler middle name similarly to [name]Rose[/name] that needs to be pushed out of the middle name slot and into the limelight. She is not like Gertude and would never be like Gertude as she has a light airy sound compared to Gertude. I believe she’s more of a [name]Pearl[/name] or an [name]Alice[/name]. The type of name that’s always been around like [name]Alice[/name] but in the middle name slot so she’s being revived into the first name slot like [name]Pearl[/name].
Plain [name]Jane[/name]…in my eyes is because people like to rhyme and [name]Jane[/name] and Plain rhyme. But for goodness sake was [name]Jane[/name] [name]Eyre[/name] plain? No! [name]Jane[/name] is a usable name suitable for any personality the whole plain jane thing is a rhyming game that has got way out of hand in my eyes
Concerning siblings I think [name]Jane[/name], [name]Simon[/name] & [name]Alice[/name] work better than [name]Jane[/name], [name]Marigold[/name] & [name]Atlas[/name]. But I don’t think because [name]Jane[/name] is quiet unusual [name]Marigold[/name] and [name]Atlas[/name] would be strange with [name]Jane[/name] - in fact it works.
[name]Love[/name] the name [name]Jane[/name]!
[name]Hope[/name] this helps xxx
I love the name [name]Jane[/name]. It is so classic and simple, but beautiful, and puts me in mind of [name]Jane[/name] [name]Eyre[/name], [name]Jane[/name] [name]Austen[/name], etc. I’d use it myself but it sounds off with our surname.
I agree with previous posters that [name]Jane[/name] works better with more classic sibling names, ones that have a similar simplicity yet lack of popularity. Examples:
Girls - [name]Frances[/name], [name]Margaret[/name], [name]Mary[/name], [name]Louise[/name]/[name]Louisa[/name]
Boys - [name]Simon[/name], [name]Walter[/name], [name]Albert[/name], [name]George[/name]
The historical figure “Calamity [name]Jane[/name]” certainly was not plain. I love [name]Jane[/name]. It can be an awesome first name, particularly when paired with either a long or complicated last name… not so much with a simple one-syllable last name like [name]Smith[/name] or [name]Jones[/name]. (My 14-year-old daughter is a third-generation bearer of [name]Jane[/name] as a middle name – and plans to use it for her daughter someday. She is currently thinking of [name]Scarlett[/name] [name]Jane[/name] for her future daughter.)
jessicalucy: From your list I love [name]Alice[/name], [name]Agnes[/name], [name]Frances[/name], [name]Beatrice[/name], [name]Lucy[/name], [name]Mabel[/name], and [name]Matilda[/name] for a sister, and [name]Thomas[/name] (nn [name]Tam[/name], not [name]Tom[/name]), [name]Arthur[/name], [name]Benjamin[/name], [name]Charles[/name], [name]Gregory[/name], and [name]Oliver[/name] for a brother. I’m wondering if I should be more focused on stylistic cohesiveness or length? I love [name]Matilda[/name], but would her three syllables dwarf [name]Jane[/name]'s one?