Truly Timeless Boy Names

Boy Names
1

I will say, the boy names were harder to do than the girls because the most classic boy names don’t fluctuate nearly as much. To compensate for that, I had to up the bar a bit. With the girl names, because they change so much, I was willing to go as low as the 330s as long as they were consistently within that range since 1900. With the boys, I stayed within the top 200 and was very conscious of whether the name could be pinpointed to a particular age range. [name_m]Just[/name_m] as with the girls, I believe timeless names are ones that are just as likely to be worn by your grandmother/grandfather as your niece/nephew. A timeless name is always in style and never a bad choice.

So, without further ado, here is the list I’ve compiled of timeless boy names:

Andrew

Lowest ranking: #86 in 1945
Current ranking: #46 as of 2019

Anthony

Lowest ranking: #67 in 1900
Current ranking: #38 as of 2019

Benjamin

Lowest ranking: #155 in 1960
Current ranking: #7 as of 2019

Charles

Lowest ranking: #64 in 2009
Current ranking: #51 as of 2019

Daniel

Lowest ranking: #55 in 1914-16
Current ranking: #15 as of 2019 (since 2017)

David

Lowest ranking: #33 in 1903
Current ranking: #27 as of 2019

George

Lowest ranking: #166 in 2012
Current ranking: #119 as of 2019

Henry

Lowest ranking: #145 in 1994
Current ranking: #12 as of 2019

Jack

Lowest ranking: #179 in 1989
Current ranking: #19 as of 2019

James

Lowest ranking: #19 in 1999, 2001, & 2010
Current ranking: #6 as of 2019

John

Lowest ranking: #28 in 2012, 2016, & 2019
Current ranking: ^^

Joseph

Lowest ranking: #24 in 2019
Current ranking: ^^

Matthew

Lowest ranking: #198 in 1945
Current ranking: #23 as of 2019

Michael

Lowest ranking: #56 in 1926
Current ranking: #14 as of 2019

Nicholas

Lowest ranking: #200 in 1900
Current ranking: #78 as of 2019

Robert

Lowest ranking: #76 in 2019
Current ranking: ^^

Samuel

Lowest ranking: #91 in 1960
Current ranking: #22 as of 2019

Thomas

Lowest ranking: #63 in 2011-12
Current ranking: #47 as of 2019

William

Lowest ranking: #20 in 1992 & 1995
Current ranking: #4 as of 2019

Honorable mentions: [name_m]Edward[/name_m], [name_m]Patrick[/name_m], [name_m]Peter[/name_m], [name_m]Richard[/name_m], [name_m]Victor[/name_m]
^^ These names just barely missed making the list, but they have been in steady decline for the last decade and have either dropped out of the Top 200 already or are about to. Depending on your perspective, they may seem dated or like fresh classics. Either way, they just couldn’t quite meet the requirements for timelessness here.

What do you think of these? Did any surprise you? [name_f]Do[/name_f] they feel like names you’d consider? [name_u]Or[/name_u] are they overused and in need of a break?

Edit: A couple of posters pointed out that I accidentally forgot George and Anthony, so I’ve added them. :slight_smile:

14 Likes
3

Definitely all super timeless. Exactly what I’d expect - minus [name_m]Robert[/name_m], that seems like a dad name to me.

1 Like
4

It does to me, too, honestly, and I think that gradually it will fall further and further.

2 Likes
5

Great list! We used [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] & [name_m]Daniel[/name_m] as middles for our boys. We were considering between [name_u]Michael[/name_u] (my dads name) and [name_m]Daniel[/name_m] (husbands middle) and [name_m]Daniel[/name_m] won out.

2 Likes
6

I would have imagined seeing [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] over [name_m]Robert[/name_m].

4 Likes
7

Honestly thank you for doing this research it’s so interesting!

I love classics and there are some stunners on this list my favourites are definitely [name_u]Benjamin[/name_u], [name_m]Henry[/name_m], [name_m]Jack[/name_m], [name_u]James[/name_u], [name_m]John[/name_m], [name_m]Joseph[/name_m], [name_m]Samuel[/name_m] and [name_m]William[/name_m].

From the honourable mention list I love practically all of them aside [name_m]Richard[/name_m] always loved [name_m]Patrick[/name_m] such a solid name.

2 Likes
8

Thank you for doing this! I like a lot of these names quite a bit.

2 Likes
9

I love all of them except [name_m]Patrick[/name_m] and [name_m]Peter[/name_m], and most of the names aren’t popular where I live. And I’d use all of them :sweat_smile:

2 Likes
10

I thought [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] would make it, too, but it went through a little decline in the '50s that just kept it from making the cut. It does feel pretty timeless, though, if you ask me. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
11

Not surprised by any. Those are truly timeless :wink:

2 Likes
12

Nicholas surprises me a little!

3 Likes
13

George?

3 Likes
14

In my opinion, the idea of “timeless names” is somewhat of a mirage. [name_m]Even[/name_m] if you constrain the list to names that have remained in the top 200, this doesn’t account for the fact that names become exponentially more popular as they ascend the ranks.

For example, in 1900 there were 100 Johns for every 1 [name_m]Nicholas[/name_m]. In 1950, there were about 86 Jameses for every 1 [name_m]Matthew[/name_m]. That’s a vast disparity.

And then there’s the nickname factor. Names like [name_u]James[/name_u] and [name_m]William[/name_m] are considered quintessential timeless names, but most older Jameses and [name_m]Williams[/name_m] go by [name_m]Jim[/name_m] and [name_m]Bill[/name_m], while younger ones are more likely to be [name_u]James[/name_u] and [name_m]Will[/name_m]/Liam. Further, [name_m]Dave[/name_m], [name_m]Chuck[/name_m], [name_m]Bob[/name_m], and [name_u]Andy[/name_u] suggest a much different age of birth than [name_m]David[/name_m], [name_u]Charlie[/name_u], [name_u]Robbie[/name_u], and [name_u]Drew[/name_u].

So even though some of these names have remained within a certain ranking range, you can obviously make an educated guess about the time of birth for most names. IMO a true timeless name would probably be any name that consistently ranks in the top 25 and has also had only one consistent nickname. That probably whittles it down to your Average [name_m]Joe[/name_m] :slight_smile:

6 Likes
15

I prefer [name_m]Johnathan[/name_m] over [name_m]John[/name_m]. Also [name_m]Edward[/name_m], even though it gets a mention, to me is very timeless. With the exception of [name_u]Michael[/name_u] ( loathe the name due to a bad experience) I like all the names. To me they feel like ‘safe’ classic options though. As in its hard to find fault with them and that they are expected.

As you all know I have an Alexànder but I don’t know why this feels more contemporary ( despite it not really being that!)
Also as others have suggested I am surprised that George isn’t on the list and perhaps Paul.

2 Likes
16

I’m actually surprised that
[name_m]Alexander[/name_m] and [name_m]Allan[/name_m] , [name_m]Luke[/name_m] and [name_m]Mark[/name_m] aren’t on the list

3 Likes
17

Thank you for pointing this one out. I looked back at my data list, and, yes, [name_u]George[/name_u] did meet the requirements. I’m not sure how he got left out!

[details=“[name_u]George[/name_u]”]
Lowest ranking: #166 in 2012
Current ranking: #119 as of 2019
[/details]

@newboots:
You make some excellent points! I definitely agree with your observations. The point of a timeless name as far as this list is concerned, however, is simply to look at which names have been consistently in use for more than a century in the US and are therefore unable to be pinned to one era – aka “timeless”. You are right that your grandfather is more likely to be [name_m]Jim[/name_m] and your son to be [name_u]James[/name_u], but that still means that [name_u]James[/name_u] is traditional and has stood the test of time. It does not become extremely popular for three decades before falling out of favor for the next seven as many names, even classics, do. That’s all I’m trying to point out here. But, you’re right, there are many other factors to consider. :slight_smile:

As I said to a pp, [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] just missed the list, but I still do find it pretty timeless. It does somehow feel more contemporary than some on this list, however, as in you are much more likely to meet a young [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] than an old. I think this one is a classic that is versatile and can be seen either way, depending on the person. [name_u]Love[/name_u] it, though! You definitely picked a handsome and perfectly classic name for your son. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
18

A lot of people are surprised by [name_m]Alexander[/name_m]! As I’ve said to others, it still does feel pretty timeless to me. :slight_smile:

As for the other three, they are definitely pretty classic. [name_m]Luke[/name_m] did not enter the Top 200 until 1977 (the same year the original [name_f]Star[/name_f] Wars film was released – fancy that!), [name_m]Mark[/name_m] fell out of favor in the 1920s and now the 2010s, and [name_m]Allan[/name_m] hasn’t been in the Top 200 since the '50s. ([name_m]Allen[/name_m]/Alan couldn’t make it either.)

1 Like
19

Thank you. I love the name but it’s a ‘big’ name which my son has only started to suit.
He was very nearly going to be Theô [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] but we switched it and we were also considering [name_m]Reuben[/name_m] (Roo)

2 Likes
20

A lot of my favorite boys’ names are on here, I’m definitely a big fan of the timeless classic, they feel so wearable. The only one I’m surprised by is [name_u]George[/name_u], which is the only one that I find a hard time picturing on someone who’s not an old man. I don’t know any [name_m]Georges[/name_m] younger than about 50. I knew it was popular in [name_u]Britain[/name_u] for little kids but I didn’t know it was still so common here.

2 Likes
21

That’s my issue too. When it comes to popularity, I’m less inclined to look at names that were consistently in the top 100 or 200 and more likely to look at how much the name has varied in percentage of babies who received the name. In that respect, a name like [name_f]Clementine[/name_f] (4.6x as popular at its peak vs it’s lowest point) is just as timeless as [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] (4.62x as popular at its peak).

Some of the mega popular names get a little tricky since there’s much more in terms of variety of names now. If we look at [name_m]Joseph[/name_m], he’s never been higher than #5 and never lower than #24 but the percent of baby Josephs was 5.7x as high at its peak vs its lowest popularity. [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] peaked at #3 and has gone as #26, but the percentage has been more consistent.

It’s all hard to track, but I dint even know where you’d start with nicknames since there isn’t any database of everyone’s nn.

2 Likes