I’ve been working with a few Rachels/Rachaels lately, and it makes me realize how much I like the name! So soft and pretty sounding. But is it a ‘dated’ name to you? I know it was way more popular in the 80s and 90s, but since it’s biblical I think it could work today. I go through this debate a lot with some of my favourite names - [name]Samantha[/name], [name]Diana[/name], [name]Natalie[/name], etc.
So, what do you think of [name]Rachel[/name] or [name]Rachael[/name] (and which spelling)? If you heard of a baby named [name]Rachel[/name], would you immediately think that it’s a “90s name”?
Hmmm…maybe both? It’s certainly classic and a tad dated too. It’s not as openly dated as [name]Jennifer[/name] and [name]Angela[/name]. It’s a nice name.
She’s a beautiful classic, very biblical and important. [name]Rachel[/name] has so many great biblical associations. She’s such a brave religious figure. I adore everything about [name]Rachel[/name]. I know that she was popular during the 1980s to 1990s but that doesn’t mean she’s dated it just means she was popular during that type. Like [name]Jane[/name] was popular in the 1920s. I adore [name]Rachel[/name]!!
[name]Rachel[/name] (my preferred spelling) seems classic to me, but just not super-fashionable right now… which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I think a lot of Biblical classic names sort of have popularity swings, but they never really go away. [name]Rachel[/name] and [name]Bethany[/name] and [name]Sarah[/name] used to be among the most common choices, but now it’s more likely you’d hear [name]Hannah[/name] and [name]Naomi[/name] and [name]Lydia[/name]. I don’t think any of the classic Biblical names ever really become unusable, though.
There are two kinds of dated names [name]IMO[/name]: Those that have a history of mainstream use prior to their modern-era peak, and those which were virtually unheard of prior to their spotlight era. [name]Rachel[/name] falls into the former group; examples of the latter group are [name]Ashley[/name] (girl) and [name]Brittany[/name]. If someone asks about a name in the former group for a modern child I usually say that it’s perfectly fine; with names in the latter group I usually advise against it.
Other examples of names from the first group: [name]Rebecca[/name], [name]Amy[/name], [name]Susan[/name], [name]Nancy[/name], etc. (the kinds of names you wouldn’t be shocked to see on a pre-20th-century ancestor). Other examples from the second group: [name]Madison[/name] (girl), [name]Brandy[/name], [name]Cheryl[/name], etc. (names you’d be surprised to see at any other point in history).
I like the pp’s comparison to [name]Jane[/name]. I could see [name]Rachel[/name] being one of those names that most people in our generation sees as boring, but that a future generation will see as a charming, underused classic. And because it has history, I don’t think it will scream “mom name” like some other names that were popular in the 80s and 90s.
I find it very dated unfortunately. There’s just something about it that makes it dull and lackluster to me, even though it sounds nice enough. That, plus some bad personal associations make [name]Rachel[/name] a no-go for me. I think [name]Rachelle[/name] or [name]Raquel[/name] are fresher options.
I wouldn’t put it as a 90’s name. I think [name]Rachel[/name] is a classic. I don’t like [name]Rachael[/name], the “a” is unnecessary. I really don’t like [name]Rachel[/name]… I think of [name]Pet[/name] Semetary where the sister calls out “RAAACHELL”
I think it’s classic, just like [name]Sarah[/name] and [name]Rebecca[/name] which also saw peaks in the 90s. I’ve known Rachels/Rachaels of all ages and I like it. I prefer the [name]Rachael[/name] spelling though, it looks prettier and more complete.
[name]Rachel[/name], [name]Sarah[/name], [name]Rebecca[/name], [name]Hannah[/name]… classic names. You could know a 90 y/o [name]Rachel[/name] or a newborn [name]Rachel[/name].
There are two kinds of dated names IMO: Those that have a history of mainstream use prior to their modern-era peak, and those which were virtually unheard of prior to their spotlight era. Rachel falls into the former group; examples of the latter group are Ashley (girl) and Brittany. If someone asks about a name in the former group for a modern child I usually say that it’s perfectly fine; with names in the latter group I usually advise against it.
I absolutely agree with this post. I’ve been teaching a 4 yr old [name]Rachel[/name] and her names fits in perfectly with the class ([name]Ava[/name], [name]Emily[/name], [name]Sophia[/name], [name]Sarah[/name], [name]Jasmine[/name] etc)
I think it’s classic…but then again, it is my name. I actually really like it as a name, and I think it’s soft and pretty. I also think it would work well on a new baby.
Oh, but it must be spelled [name]Rachel[/name]. Anything else is just silly
[name]Rachel[/name]/[name]Rachael[/name] (I like both spellings) is classic. It might have been popular in the 80s/90s, but it will never go out of style. I think it’s definitely usable.
While I like the name, I do think it is dated. (By the way, I don’t think [name]Natalie[/name] is dated!) I prefer the [name]Rachel[/name] spelling just because it looks more streamlined. If I heard that there was a baby [name]Rachel[/name], I’d think it would be a little odd, but it’s still a beautiful name nonetheless!
