But the thing is, a lot of the names some of you think of as just awful, are just names you personally have old people associations with, and are not ready for. Whereas other people are either a bit more ahead of the curve, or are able to look at the name a bit more objectively and decide that actually, it is a nice name.
My own name is a really good example of a cyclical name that people either love or hate, depending on when it's in or out of fashion.
Right now it's so in fashion that it's over-used, too popular and people are actually rejecting it because of its popularity. Which means that in another 10 or 20 years it will absolutely, definitely be out of favour and sound awfully dated to the next generation.
I know this, because when I was given it in the early 70s it was desperately old lady, no-one was using it, and my parents got a lot of raised eyebrows and questioning looks when they told people my name. People though, quite honestly, that it was awful and I grew up really not liking my old-fashioned, dusty, old lady name.
It's Isobel. Hard to believe it had all those awful connotations, right? Because now it sounds so current and 'in'. Well, it didn't then, believe me!
People who resent their parents for choosing quintessential-for-that-era's-names - all they were doing was choosing the names which sounded fresh and lovely and pretty and current at that time. All the Rubys and Lilys and Avas and Evies and Islas will be in that boat eventually, too - wondering why their parents were so unoriginal and chose such staid, boring names for them. The answer being that they weren't staid and boring when they were chosen, they just became so over time through over-use and familiarity.
In another 10-20 years, the likes of Maud, Agnes, Edith, Audrey, etc, will have shed their negative associations to our generation and have become the 'go to' names for the next generation who think they sound nice. It's just that some people are more ahead of the curve and are using them already.
'Twas ever thus.