Despite literally centuries of overuse, most people aren’t naming their kids [name]John[/name] or [name]Mary[/name]. I feel that certain names need to take that downward slope because they’ve used in too many cross sections of class, ethnic, or religious backgrounds. They’ve spawned more interesting nicknames that their originators. Here’s a few that I believe are the new Johns and [name]Marys[/name] of the world:
[name]Alexander[/name] – 80s comeback that needs to go back
[name]David[/name] – blah
[name]Michael[/name] – the new [name]Jennifer[/name]
[name]Anne[/name] – the old [name]Rose[/name] of middle names
[name]Elizabeth[/name] – needs a rest to hopefully become the next [name]Sophia[/name] of the 22nd century
[name]Emma[/name] – take [name]Emily[/name] with you
[name]Grace[/name] – surely there are other virtues
[name]Hope[/name] – ho-no
[name]Katherine[/name] – yawn
[name]Laura[/name] – eye-roll
[name]Sarah[/name] – very beige
I feel some of these classic pillars are so unimaginative. Surely, it’s better than naming your daughter Quinoa or son [name]Halston[/name] but with these you’re not even trying. What other sacred cows of naming just need to be slaughtered?
Unimaginitive? Not even trying?! Are you kidding? [name]Just[/name] because a name is classic/popular doesn’t mean the parents haven’t put a great deal of thought into it. [name]Even[/name] if they just like the name- what’s wrong with that? Not everyone (the majority, in fact) wants a complicated >Top 1000 name that no one can spell or pronounce. These names also have the added bonus of having for hundreds of years of history with many notable bearers, unlike trendy, flash-in-the-pan, 21st century, made up rubbish. And if you could get rid of these names, what exactly do you think will replace them? [name]Celia[/name], maybe? Or [name]Esme[/name]?
[name]Feel[/name] free to dislike popular or classic names all you like -that’s your prerogative- but please don’t make posts about ‘slaughtering’ names because you think they’re ‘unimaginitive’.
I have to disagree with you on this one, I love classic names. They’re tried and tested on generations, work on adults as well as children and as more people are going for modern, out-there names, the classics will stand out even more. I’ll admit I don’t know any young [name]Marys[/name] but I do know three young Johns and all suit their name perfectly. I wouldn’t say that parents using these names are “not even trying” - some may be family names, others may use the long form to get a nickname but give their child a more professional option later in life. I’d say not even trying would be picking a top 10 name because it “sounds pretty”. I’d much rather meet a baby [name]Sarah[/name] than yet another “we call her [name]Bella[/name]” any day.
I don’t believe any name should be retired. Naming is all about personal preferences. You may find classic names like katherine/catherine boring However I find [name]Catherine[/name] to be a beautiful name and one of my favorites. I personally love that it has a lot of history.
This is so unfair. Naming your child [name]Elizabeth[/name] doesn’t make you unimaginative. You don’t know the thought process behind a name choice. In fact, for some people (myself included) [name]Elizabeth[/name] would be an unusual choice, where as something like [name]Nayeli[/name] would be right on trend and expected. It’s very unfair to slam someone because they love classic or popular names.
I agree with all these girls. The names you listed are beautiful classics, I in particular love [name]Emma[/name] and [name]Alexander[/name]. You’re of course allowed to dislike them, but why make threads about it? It’s just tacky. Why not focus on the names you like instead?
I’m not personally attracted to the core classic names, except [name]Mary[/name]. I think [name]Mary[/name] is perfection. Anyway…
People have different motivations for choosing the name that they do, other than being perceived as imaginative. I do agree that if some of these names had a naming respite, they might sound fresher down the line, but sometimes history/family/name image trumps freshness. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn’t mind being named any of the girl names above.
Blandness is in the eye of the beholder… We are at an interesting time in naming history were many names feel both old and stogy yet fresh and new. These names aren’t in that category like [name]Martha[/name] or [name]Betty[/name] would be, and I understand how they may not be exciting to you cause you’ve seen them so much, but I much prefer these clean, truly timeless names to many others.
I love classic and traditional names and like most of the names you want to retire. I’d rather see the overly imaginative and bizarre spellings retired than timeless classics.
Why should any of these names be “retired”? [name]Haven[/name]'t they earned the respect they deserve for surviving for centuries in spite of name fads that have come and gone through the years? Isn’t that why many people love them: because they have great depth, historic pedigree and they’re familiar, comforting and age well? If they bore you then don’t choose them. But don’t dismiss them so easily because many people love them.
Out of all these names, [name]Alexander[/name] is one of the oldest names in your list. I [name]LOVE[/name] [name]Alexander[/name]. It’s a very strong name and should never be retired even though it lasted for centuries. There’s a reason why it lasted for so long.
I could not have said it better myself. There is a reason that these names have been so widely used for so long. They are wonderful names. No one here is trying to make you use these names, but I think I can speak for most when I say, just because a name is not your personal naming style, does not mean that it should be slaughtered.
This is ridiculous, and offensive to me, and I wouldn’t even touch those names. I know people with ALL of those names, I HAVE one as my own, and you are saying they need to be ‘retired?’ What does that mean? Are you just going to pull them from the universe with your large, opinionated hands and put them in some kind of poisonous, cosmic filing cabinet?
You have another post about reviving names that I would consider retired. The names you have listed here have far better history, reputation, and sound than your ‘Hollywood classics’ you have such an affinity for.
If I said I know a brother and sister called [name]Sarah[/name] and [name]John[/name], you can’t really pinpoint the age they’d be, as they could be any age.
However, if I said I know a brother and sister called [name]Ashley[/name] and [name]Kyle[/name], you can pretty much work out what age range they’re most likely to be in.
It’s that timelessness of those names that appeals to parents.
I’d much rather see names like [name]Nevaeh[/name] retired!!!
I’m torn, some of the names I agree with. I’ve used 2 of the names you’ve listed as middles for my sons and now they do feel just like filler names and I wish I had gone with something more interesting or personal to us. I’m considering another for my current pregnancy, but only because my other half wants a normal name to balance the more unique first and second middle names I like.
But these names are classic for a reason, so if someone has a reason for loving them I think they should go for it, but I find them a bit bland or overdone so they’ve lost their sparkle for me.
You think certain names need to…how did you so eloquently put it? “Be slaughtered”…because… “They’re used in too many cross sections of class, ethnic, or religious backgrounds.”
I really hope I’m misunderstanding you, because this comment makes you sound like a bigot.
If you think “classic” names are boring, fine. [name]Don[/name]'t use them. But they have stood the test of time and are popular on a global level because they hold meaning for people from many different walks of life. Personally, I think that’s a beautiful thing!
Most of those names are/were popular for a reason - they have a long(er) history of usage and appeal to a broader set of social backgrounds than many “trendier” names. Sure they may not be very exciting, but they are the kind of names that would work well on (almost) any child and grow into them as they get older.
So you think (based on your other recent post) that [name]Hortense[/name] and [name]Chablis[/name] are terrific, but [name]Elizabeth[/name] and [name]Alexander[/name] should be culled from the name lexicon for the sin of having long-term, widespread, cross-cultural appeal?
