Name for the Second Sister

See the results of this poll: What should I name Frederick, Harriet, and Ada’s sister?

Respondents: 46 (This poll is closed)

  • Alice Thornton, later Sparrow : 6 (13%)
  • Georgiana Thornton, later Sparrow : 5 (11%)
  • Edith Thornton, later Sparrow : 7 (15%)
  • Florence Thornton, later Sparrow : 4 (9%)
  • Marie Thornton, later Sparrow : 0 (0%)
  • Imogen Thornton, later Sparrow : 4 (9%)
  • Maude Thornton, later Sparrow : 5 (11%)
  • Viola Thornton, later Sparrow : 11 (24%)
  • Iris Thornton, later Sparrow: 4 (9%)

[name]Florence[/name] & [name]Iris[/name] have the same problem as [name]Iris[/name].

[name]Edith[/name] would have my vote but it wasn’t revived until the Victorians (it had been dead for literally centuries, and would be just as odd as Aethelthrith today), so no girl in 1833 would have been given it.

[name]Imogen[/name] is equally unrealistic (Sir [name]Walter[/name] [name]Scott[/name] essentially invented it, and it didn’t catch on for real girls until the very end of the 19th c).

[name]Marie[/name]-- no way. [name]England[/name] was undergoing perennial wars with [name]France[/name], so French names were off-limits.

Which leaves [name]Georgiana[/name], [name]Maude[/name] and [name]Viola[/name]. [name]Maude[/name] would have been very antiquated and servant-class, so probably not for your family. [name]Georgiana[/name] was very, very posh-- is that your family? [name]Viola[/name] is very fanciful but probably the best, by process of elimination.

Other ideas:

[name]Mary[/name] (every family had one)
[name]Caroline[/name] (this girl would have been born during the Hanoverians)
[name]Eliza[/name]
[name]Jane[/name]
[name]Frances[/name]
[name]Augusta[/name]
[name]Dorothea[/name]
[name]Amelia[/name]

I agree with everything [name]Blade[/name] has to say. I see similar problems with [name]Alice[/name] and [name]Florence[/name] as with [name]Iris[/name], and while I adore all of those names, I don’t think any of those three are going to work very well. Historically speaking, [name]Edith[/name], [name]Marie[/name], and [name]Imogen[/name] wouldn’t have been her name at the time. Of the remaining names, my favorite is [name]Viola[/name]. [name]One[/name] question, though: [name]How[/name] are you pronouncing [name]Viola[/name]? There are several ways to go here (vee-OH-la, VY-oh-la, vy-OH-la, etc.) I would think that over. Good luck, and I hope this helps!

[name]Viola[/name] [name]Thornton[/name]/[name]Sparrow[/name] flows best pronounced vi-uh-la.

I think [name]Edith[/name] sounds the best with those surnames. But [name]Maude[/name] and [name]Imogen[/name] would also be great, especially with that sib-set.

Thanks everyone for the responses and votes! It’s been really helpful!
@blade- thanks for the in depth response. It certainly has me leaning towards [name]Viola[/name] (pronounced VYE-oh-la.) Though when you say it’s fanciful, do you mean that it’s too much or too lacey with the names of her siblings? I would describe the family as being upper middle class, so I think it may work… Your suggestions are good too, thanks again.

@zoey_walker53- I like [name]Edith[/name] too, but I don’t want to be innacurate with naming. Plus, I have this quirk where I’m bothered that [name]Ada[/name] and [name]Edith[/name] have those d sounds in the very begining, but [name]Harriet[/name] does not. Again, I have a lot to consider!

Thanks again for all the responses!

[name]Viola[/name] wold have been perceived at the time as very ornate and foreign. [name]Shakespeare[/name] rather deliberately used Italianate names to make his settings seem polished and otherworldly, and that’s how those names were perceived all the way up through the middle of the 19th c, when an Italian fever swept through [name]Britain[/name] (spurred no doubt by relative peace in Europe and the new pastime of touring). Since [name]England[/name] at the time had been ruled by 1+ centuries of Germanic kings, the previously [name]German[/name] names were in vogue particularly among the upper middle classes. [name]Amelia[/name], [name]Charlotte[/name], and [name]Caroline[/name] would have been much more likely. You unconsciously reflected this in your selection of [name]Frederick[/name].

[name]Just[/name] a note to say, if it’s set in the mid 1800’s then there was no middle class in [name]England[/name]. You had the independently rich (your aristocracy, lords and ladies and dukes and so forth) your professionals (your upper class; doctors, lawyers, police chiefs etc) your working class (shopkeepers, teachers etc) and finally your underclass, the dirt poor. (usually servants (though some had better positions than others and would slot into the ‘working class’ category), lowest paid factory workers, workhouse inmates etc)

It is possible that there were different tiers to the working classes, for example my great granny and her mother owned two shops, six houses and were comfortably well off BUT they would still have been described as working class.

@renrose- thank you for the clarificaiton. That’s extremely helpful with my story. [name]Even[/name] though I’m still working on the details, how the class system worked around 1850-1855 is extremely important.
I wonder, do you know where bankers and financers would fall in this class system? Would they be considered professionals or working class? Again, thank you for the clarificaiton.

@blade- With that I think [name]Viola[/name] is out (especially since the other names aren’t in the same realm,) and it has me reconsidering the name of my heroines sister, which is the Shakespearean [name]Rosamund[/name]. Oh well, I’m glad to be working these kinks out now!
With your naming advice I’ve chosen [name]Charlotte[/name] for the second sister, making the set [name]Frederick[/name], [name]Harriet[/name], [name]Charlotte[/name], and [name]Ada[/name].

Thank you everyone for all of your help!

I picked [name]Maude[/name]. A friend of mine wanted to use it for his daughter and his wife told him, “NO!” :slight_smile: So, this way, [name]Andy[/name] still gets a [name]Maude[/name] out there in the world.

If the person is someone high up the banking chain then they’d be in the professional category. If they were on the lower end of the scale, say a clerk or something then they’d be comfortably well off working class like my shop keeping family. There’re plenty of places to research online for that sort of thing too if you need more info :slight_smile:

@renrose- thanks for the answer. If you have any links to reccomend, that’d be fantastic. I’ll get started on this immediatly!

I voted [name]Iris[/name] but could have gone [name]Edith[/name] :slight_smile:

I think [name]Charlotte[/name] is a great choice! And it’s great the way Nameberries share their knowledge to help out with these naming dilemmas. It looks like the information was very helpful in arriving at this name.

I also think [name]Charlotte[/name] is a perfect choice.

I’m not sure where you live, a_j, but I think you’re from the US, right? It’s hard for Americans to really divorce money/income from social class. At the time period in question, non-titled people were starting to make large fortunes-- industrialists and entrepreneurs and the like-- but it was before the old estates fell into penury and needed the injection of cash those industrialists could provide. A mere banker would never have been noticed by the movers and shakers, and absolutely would have been considered ‘professional class.’ Unlike nowadays, where the professions command a good deal of social respect, in the early-mid 19th c they did not. The clergy were considered a great deal more important and educated (particularly the higher ranks-- bishops, etc) than would any doctor, lawyer, or financier. Doctors were not considered gentlemen and lawyers were thought of largely as troublesome hacks (this attitude persists into Dickens, who was the most poignant and marvelous social observer of his era).

A banker and his family, however, would have had a comfortable life. They would live in one of those 4-story, 4000 ft^2 townhouses in the city; they would keep a servant staff of 3-4 (perhaps more); their children would be well-educated. Unlike the rank misery, toil and fear which dominated the workingman’s life, your Thorntons would have had it very good indeed.

This is true but I didn’t indicate that they would be. A doctor wouldn’t be considered a gentleman because a gentleman was part of the aristocracy and as such wouldn’t need to work at all. Doesn’t mean they weren’t well respected and well paid professionals. I’m pretty sure they considered themselves a class above someone who worked in a factory all day for buttons.

I’m taking most of my information from branches of my own family in the mid/late 1800’s. My doctor and his family owned a huge house and had a ton of servants. My shop keepers owned two shops and five houses.

I wasn’t responding to you, ren, or contradicting you. And I meant ‘gentleman’ rather loosely. Of course they weren’t titled (though the very upper echelon were sometimes knighted for service). It really, largely, wasn’t a particularly prestigious or respectable thing to do (at least not until it started working at the turn of the last century). Unlike the Church, one didnt even need a university education to practice medicine. Definitely above a button-maker, as would be any person who somewhat controlled their own day, but more akin to a shopkeeper.

Ok, sorry I misread it then :slight_smile:

You are briliant!!! I love learning new things, I can see how much a name would say…

cheers :slight_smile: it’s what makes names so interesting.