I’m generally a person who likes rather unique names, but recently, I’m finding myself in love with the somewhat plain, rather un-unique classic, simple, and elegant names like [name]Anne[/name], [name]Jane[/name], [name]Leah[/name], [name]Hannah[/name], [name]Eleanor[/name], [name]Thomas[/name], [name]Nathan[/name], [name]George[/name], and [name]Henry[/name].
What do you think? Am I becoming dowdy, or are people ready for some fresh oldies? I’m really considering naming my next child one of these names or a similar name… what’s your honest opinion?
[name]Carrie[/name], the names you listed don’t feel plain at all; classics are just that, timeless and oblivious to trends. They are always fresh and accessible, because while there might always be one [name]Thomas[/name] in a class, very rarely are there more than one. (Unlike the three Ashtons I’m currently teaching-- two girls, one boy.)
One of my favorite things about classic names is that they can’t be pinned down to a certain era. Take my name-- pretty much every [name]Melissa[/name] in this country is between 25 and 35; likewise, 20 years from now college dorms will be flooded with Avas and Isabellas. [name]Anne[/name] or [name]Jane[/name] will always stand out in that crowd.
I agree, while some of these names might be more popular now then they were 5 years ago ([name]Eleanor[/name], [name]Henry[/name]), they have always been around. Names like that hit the right note of familiar yet not horribly popular/trendy. And plain can be pretty!! [name]Anne[/name] sounds pretty good compared to a million Kendras and Addisons.
I’m in the same boat, [name]Carrie[/name]. I’ve always liked the weirdest names, but now that it actually comes time to name a child, I’m loving classics. I think part of it is that so many kids now have “unique” names, making it less than unique. Classics sound fresher right now than off-the-wall choices do. That’s why I, who all my family is expecting some ridiculous name from, am probably naming my son [name]James[/name]. It’s timeless, will never sound dated, I’ll never say “oh god, what were we thinking naming him that?”, we won’t always hear “oh, that’s an interesting name” (with that tone people give), ya know? However, we’re going to balance it with something unique, so I’m not completely giving up my old ways.
If you click on “Hot Lists,” [name]Pam[/name] and [name]Linda[/name] have compiled a list of classic names!
I love classic and vintage names, because to me, the vintage names are classic. ([name]Genevieve[/name], [name]Emmeline[/name], [name]Annabelle[/name], [name]Cora[/name], [name]Clementine[/name]…)
[name]Anne[/name] (I’m going back to it due to [name]Annabelle[/name]'s popularity)
[name]Rose[/name]
[name]Grace[/name]
[name]Tess[/name]
[name]Maude[/name]
[name]Charlotte[/name]
[name]Laura[/name]
[name]Catherine[/name]
[name]Eliza[/name]
[name]Elizabeth[/name]
[name]Amelia[/name]
[name]Beatrice[/name]
[name]Louisa[/name]
[name]Josephine[/name]
[name]Georgia[/name]
[name]Hope[/name]
[name]Jane[/name]
[name]Julia[/name]
[name]Juliet[/name]
[name]Margaret[/name]
[name]Nora[/name]
[name]Nell[/name]
[name]Helen[/name]/[name]Helena[/name]
[name]Susannah[/name]
[name]Mary[/name]
[name]Caroline[/name]
(I tried to keep it to classics, but may have included some vintage names in there!)
I love [name]Jane[/name] and [name]Samuel[/name] - can you beat how cute and simple the name [name]Sam[/name] is? Neither go well with my last name (imo) but I still love them.
I think classic names are classics for a reason, they have lovely sounds that in fifty years won’t sound the way the once-trendy [name]Bertha[/name] sounds to us.
I think they’re fantastic names, and I have to agree with the others, they can’t be pinpointed to any generation, and really, most classics have had quite the rest from popularity. The only classic names that I have heard used in my generation frequently are [name_m]Joshua[/name_m], [name_m]Alexander[/name_m], [name_m]David[/name_m], [name_u]James[/name_u], [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f], [name_m]Nathan[/name_m], [name_f]Leah[/name_f], [name_f]Sarah[/name_f], [name_f]Emily[/name_f], and [name_f]Emma[/name_f], so I think it’d be rather refreshing to meet a baby [name_f]Catherine[/name_f], [name_f]Anne[/name_f] or [name_f]Jane[/name_f], or a little [name_m]Thomas[/name_m], [name_m]George[/name_m] or [name_m]Henry[/name_m]. Definitely far from ‘dowdy’ or boring! I’ve noticed my names going in cycles too, I’ll adore [name_f]Holly[/name_f], [name_f]Freya[/name_f], [name_f]Imogen[/name_f], etc for a while, then come back to [name_f]Florence[/name_f], [name_f]Cora[/name_f], and [name_f]Harriet[/name_f], then back to [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f], [name_f]Anna[/name_f] and [name_f]Eleanor[/name_f].
I couldn’t agree more. I love classic names. I have always loved [name_f]Anne[/name_f] and [name_f]Helen[/name_f] and I now find myself warming up to [name_m]John[/name_m]. It’s funny for somebody who has grown up with a more unusual name (which I do love too), but I know the names I will give my children will be those historical, longstanding, simple ones.
And, in an era when everybody is trying to give their baby a unique name, nobody shall be more unique than the person who doesn’t go in that direction! And classic names are classic for a reason; it’s because they’re good.
Classics are classic for a reason! Those names are all lovely. For what it’s worth, there are plenty of classics that are not super common right now. [name_f]Louisa[/name_f], for example, is #973! [name_f]Susannah[/name_f] isn’t even in the top 1000. [name_m]Even[/name_m] [name_f]Jane[/name_f] is pretty unusual these days. I think that traditional names are a breath of fresh air after all the Jaydens and Brinleighs running around. I love classic names!
[name_f]Cecilia[/name_f], [name_f]Alice[/name_f], [name_f]Jane[/name_f], [name_f]Laura[/name_f], [name_f]Margaret[/name_f], [name_f]Elaine[/name_f], [name_m]Calvin[/name_m], [name_u]Lawrence[/name_u], [name_m]Martin[/name_m], [name_m]Peter[/name_m]…
