Violet has been added to the mix!

[name]Baby[/name] due in 6.5 weeks. Has been called [name]Chloe[/name] (or Chlo”) [name]Jane[/name] for a couple of months, but it looks like that won’t be her name after all. The mother loves the name [name]Chloe[/name], but is now concerned about it being too popular. (Since it matters to her, I think she has reason to be concerned about having another [name]Chloe[/name] “or 2!” in her daughter’s class: [name]Chloe[/name] ranked #10 last year and [name]Khloe[/name] lept from 665 to 196, which made it the fastest rising name. It looks like there ARE going to be a lot of baby girls named [name]Chloe[/name]/[name]Khloe[/name] in the next few years.)

Mom likes [name]Phoebe[/name] [name]Jane[/name], similar in sound and background to [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Jane[/name], BUT Dad doesn’t like [name]Phoebe[/name].

Mom’s back up name [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] ([name]Smith[/name]) would be okay with him, but Mom has concerns about the ordinariness of [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name].

Dad would like to call the baby [name]Violet[/name] after his great-grandma (“who he remembers”). Mom is thinking about the name [name]Violet[/name] (middle name [name]Jane[/name], of course) with the nn [name]Letty[/name].

It appears that [name]Violet[/name] is a fairly popular name among “Nameberryites”. But do you know any little girls named [name]Violet[/name]? If so, what nicknames are used – or are most called by the full name [name]Violet[/name]?

And how do YOU say the name – with 2 syllables or 3: VIE-l?t or VIE-?-l?t?

i say violet VIE-l?t. violet rose from 229 spot to 184 one of the fastest risers of 2008. I know 3 violets none go by a nn. I feel like this name is reasonably popular.

It’s a reasonable guess that [name]Violet[/name] will have risen greatly by the time the records are calculated and released on Mother’s [name]Day[/name] next year. As a trivial note, it is right beside [name]Karen[/name] in popularity for 2008, but it has so much buzz, you know it will be much higher next year (probably even break the top 100) and me and [name]Violet[/name] are going in opposite directions. I really think it’s pretty, though. I think this is a name that’s not just popular on nameberry. Really hot names leap by hundreds from one year to the next.

[name]Violet[/name] is still getting more popular but it’s slowed. Strangely, it bounded up from 904 to 588 in shorter than 100 places each year since 1998, stayed at 588 from 2003 to 2004, and then whipped up over 200 places in 2005 ([name]Violet[/name] Affleck wasn’t born until Dec. 2005). Now it is coming at less than 100 places each year again. It is 184 in 2008 - should be about 80-130 next year. That a name can reach the top 100 in 12 years from nowhere is not insignificant.

As for popularity - a name at the low end of the top 200 last year and maybe low top 100 next year (say between 75 and 100, to be conservative) will have a lower likelihood of sharing her name in the classroom. It may be top 10 in 2 years, but all those girls will be in a different grade, so not in the same class. However, the buzz is there, so it may be contagious in her community among people who are naming their child this year. There is no guarantee against this name having others with the same name in her class, just fewer in her grade, statistically than [name]Chloe[/name]. It also depends on how average these parents are compared to their community, taste can sometimes be determined by socio-economic factors with [name]Violet[/name] remaining somewhat high and special, but extremely popular among upper middle-class right now. It hasn’t appealed to every sector yet, but could be saturated as an appealing choice in very small pockets of parents who all send their children to the same school.

If someone can think of a good name and they like it, popularity shouldn’t matter that much, but [name]Violet[/name] will in all likelihood become very popular in a few years, and yet remain statistically quite less popular than [name]Chloe[/name] by the time this baby is born.

If you go to the SSA website, check it out by state - [name]Violet[/name] isn’t on the top 100, I would guess, in most (if any; I didn’t check all of them) states yet, and the results for 2009 are not posted until [name]May[/name], but depending on the state, it may not break the top 100 in the state of concern by next year either. To compare, [name]Chloe[/name] is #17 in my state, Massachusetts, rather then a top ten as averaged nationally, and that’s actually still on the way up (very gradually) over the past several years.

I, too, let go of [name]Chloe[/name] because of her popularity. And such a pretty name! Too bad dad doesn’t like [name]Phoebe[/name] although I can’t get DH on board with that one either, so there must be something that makes [name]Chloe[/name] more appealing to dads! I agree with your friend that [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] is a little too boring, almost like a non-name. Usually I don’t care for [name]Violet[/name] because my brain sees the word violent. But I don’t think that’s a common problem so I understand [name]Violet[/name]'s appeal to most people. I like the idea of [name]Letty[/name] for a nn, or also [name]Vi[/name]. I don’t know any Violets, personally. I pronounce [name]Violet[/name] with 2 1/2 syllables - not just vi-let but not quite vi-o-let either. [name]Violet[/name] [name]Jane[/name] is a great combination!

Perhaps [name]Cleo[/name] would be a solution to your [name]Chloe[/name] problem although I think [name]Violet[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] is a pretty good chice too.

I say to heck with these lists. My son is [name]Ted[/name] and there is another [name]Ted[/name] in his class. My two girls I thought had non=popular names but I see them both all over this website!
[name]Chloe[/name] [name]Jane[/name] is great
so is:
[name]Violet[/name] [name]Jane[/name] (no nickname I can think of)
or try:
[name]Josephine[/name] ([name]Josie[/name])
[name]Polly[/name] (new fave)
Good luck!

Vy lot

Our 2 yr old gdaughter is [name]Chloe[/name] and her parents are extra pleased with her name even though they like more unusual names this was the one that stuck because Mum loved it for so long. If you don’t want it as a fn why not as a mn?

Although [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Violet[/name] sounds great, and nn for [name]Violet[/name] is Vy or Violi

I don’t know any little Violets. I pronounce [name]Violet[/name] with three syllables. Too bad Dad doesn’t like [name]Phoebe[/name].
I also love [name]Vivian[/name], and it is similar to [name]Violet[/name] but not as common.

[name]Pheobe[/name] [name]Jane[/name] is so cute! I completely agree that [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Smith[/name] would be a bore. [name]How[/name] about these simliar names to [name]Chloe[/name]/[name]Phoebe[/name]:
[name]Daphne[/name] ([name]Jane[/name])
hope these names help!

I think finding another fn would be best and then using either [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Jane[/name] or [name]Violet[/name] jane as mns.

[name]Lesley[/name], I agree, it wouldn’t matter to ME how popular [name]Chloe[/name] is if it were the name I really wanted to use. And you’re right that it can be the less popular names that sometimes surprisingly duplicate in a classroom. That’s really unpredictable.

[name]Rollo[/name], you’re lucky to have a little [name]Chloe[/name] in your family! I’m really disappointed that the mother of this baby has become so concerned about name popularity. It was announced that the baby was going to be [name]Chloe[/name], and so everyone was referring to her by that name for a couple of months: baby shower for [name]Chloe[/name], [name]Chloe[/name]'s room, etc. Sometimes I forget and still think of her as [name]Chloe[/name]. [name]Even[/name] the parents-to-be refer to her as [name]Chloe[/name] sometimes, though the mom has strongly stated her name won’t be [name]Chloe[/name]. When [name]Chloe[/name] was chosen the mom knew the name was statistically popular, but didn’t know any babies or little girls named [name]Chloe[/name]. But then she started mentioning that she was going to name her daughter [name]Chloe[/name], and she heard of MANY Chloes others know. Too bad…

And so at 3 weeks before due-date, the baby has no name. [name]Jane[/name] and [name]Violet[/name] (both family names - one from each side) seem to be the leading contenders, with continuing concerns about the blandness of [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] ([name]Jane[/name] being the mother’s favorite name and liked by the dad too) and only moderate enthusiasm for [name]Violet[/name] on the mother’s part. Mom really likes [name]Phoebe[/name] [name]Jane[/name] (so close to [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Jane[/name], without top ten popularity or trendiness), but Dad isn’t liking [name]Phoebe[/name] at this time, although at one point he liked it better than [name]Chloe[/name].

They will need to figure this out soon!

Maybe they should use all 3?

[name]Chloe[/name] [name]Violet[/name] [name]Jane[/name]
[name]Violet[/name] [name]Chloe[/name] [name]Jane[/name]
[name]Chloe[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Violet[/name]

I once knew of a family who couldn’t agree on a name so they used all 3 of the names they liked best. (The child’s initials ended up being [name]JOEY[/name], so they even had that as an option at least as a nn.) As the baby grew, they eventually settled on calling him by his 3rd name because that’s what fit his personality best. Always an option.

Personally, if they’ve been calling her [name]Chloe[/name], they should probably stick with it and maybe come up with an unique pet name for her, but that’s just my opinion.

Good [name]Luck[/name]! :slight_smile:

Some more ideas (btw [name]Violet[/name] is #178 ssa in 2008 I haven’t put [name]Jane[/name] and [name]Catherine[/name] in every combo because I was trying to get the right feel and flow.

[name]Maeve[/name] [name]Arabella[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Smith[/name]
[name]Calista[/name] [name]Violet[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] nn [name]Callie[/name]
[name]Claudia[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Smith[/name]
[name]Cleo[/name] [name]Valentina[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name]
[name]Letitia[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Viola[/name] [name]Smith[/name]
[name]Genevieve[/name] [name]Andrea[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name]
[name]Vivienne[/name] [name]Camilla[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Smith[/name]
[name]Alicia[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Smith[/name]
[name]Cecily[/name] [name]Violet[/name] [name]Anne[/name] [name]Smith[/name]
[name]Leila[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]Alexandra[/name] [name]Smith[/name]

Hopefully mother will love one of these combos or it may give her some more ideas. Good luck, can’t wait for the next instalment.

[name]How[/name] about a name similar to [name]Jane[/name] or [name]Chloe[/name]? Like [name]Janelle[/name] (not saying I love it but you get the idea) or [name]Colette[/name]? BTW, I agree that you think [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] is 1950’s but it is a GREAT name and think how many people in [name]America[/name] are not “[name]Jane[/name]” or “[name]Smith[/name]” anymore?!

I don’t recall tying [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] to the 1950s, but I have come across many internet instances of “[name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name]” used as a example similar to [name]Jane[/name] [name]Doe[/name] (something like, eg., [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name], MA). I appreciate your kudos for [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] – and you’re right that there aren’t that many young [name]Janes[/name] in the USA today, so coming across another [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] in her generation would be unlikely. I looked at the number of [name]Janes[/name] born in 2008: 819 American girls were given the name [name]Jane[/name], an average of only 16 per state. (The decline is even more drastic in [name]Britain[/name], where [name]Jane[/name] – a top ten name of the 1960s – had only 31 namesakes in [name]England[/name] and [name]Wales[/name] in 2008. Yet [name]Jane[/name] is still a very popular middle name in the UK, where it ranked fourth among “second forenames” for girls in [name]Scotland[/name] in 2009.)

I’ve encouraged the young mother to name her daughter [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] because that’s the name she has loved for years (her closest sister’s middle name and her mother’s first name). I’ve told her that there’s no objective reason not to name her daughter [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Smith[/name].

Now she’s come up with possibly [name]Jane[/name] [name]Violet[/name], to please her fianc” (he suggested [name]Violet[/name], the name of a great-grandma, as a possible FIRST name for the baby). This, understandably, is hurtful to her mother [name]Catherine[/name] who has heard “[name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name]” again and again. ([name]Catherine[/name] is fine with [name]Violet[/name] [name]Jane[/name] – the ‘purpose’ of [name]Violet[/name] being a less bland combination than [name]Jane[/name] [name]Smith[/name] and a name considerably less popular than [name]Chloe[/name] (for the time being…).)

I think we most likely won’t know the baby’s name until she’s born. I think [name]Jane[/name] is what the mother really wants to call her, and I would continue to encourage that if there weren’t the [name]Jane[/name] [name]Violet[/name] ‘concern’ now. I’m not saying anything further, nor is her mother. [name]Just[/name] 19 days till Due Date; not long to wait for [name]Baby[/name] now.

I say [name]Vi[/name]-o-let, which is a lovely name, but no doubt going to rise in popularity with it being a celeb fave ([name]Jennifer[/name] and [name]Ben[/name] Afleck; [name]Dave[/name] Grohl for example) This may put in the [name]Chloe[/name] pile - lovely name but too popular.

Some names from the top 100 in Uk this yr: