What do you think are the Sharon/Tracy/Michelle names of this generation???

Actually, as so many of you seem to have strong opinions on what's over-used/chavvy/will date, I'm assuming you've all made impeccable name choices of your own?

So spill! Help us poor unoriginal, taste-free mums-to-be with what you think are fail-safe, original names for this generation...

Where has this Finley thing come from? Never met any apart from my Dad and my nephew (family name, though spelled a but differently).

Everyone seemed to be called Sharon/Tracy/Michelle/Gillian/Alison when I was at school...

This is a bit of a depressing thread for those of us about to drop and who've just sorted out our name lists. Interestingly, my own first name and middle name have been mentioned in different posts with totally opposite connotations, so it shows there's no consistent 'rule'.

Also, some of the negative comments about over-use don't resonate at all. We don't know a single Zac (and live in a very middle-class area of SE England). As for comments that it's a trendy name and biblical ones have more longevity, Zachary IS biblical...just saying...

I'm going to stop looking before I get so depressed I have to scrap my carefully considered name choices and just call the baby 'baby' because I'm too put off by judgemental comments to choose

Also Louise (much used as a second name)

Back in 1996, I had a temp booking at the local tertiary college inputting data of all of that year's UCAS applications. Probably two out of three girls at that college had Louise as a middle name I expect if the same exercise were done in fifteen years time, most of the middle names would be Rose or May.

The thing is, from my 80s school days, 'Sharon and Tracey' carry massive connotations and it's impossible to read 'names like these' without that 'white stilleto archetype' being the first thing that comes to mind. It wasn't just about people with these names but that the term 'Sharons and Traceys' or 'she's a bit of a Sharon' 'that's a bit Sharony' were widely used and understood. Of course that was snobby but that doesn't stop it from being true. Those names burned themselves out through association, as well as overuse.

On the other hand, the popular names at the same time (so born in 70s) that peaked, then dropped, were Sarah, Rachel, Clare, Alison and Nicola. Also Louise (much used as a second name) and Julie.

In my mother's generation, 1940s/50s, it was all Janets and Susans.

I think Debbie and Jackie were of the 60s.

The 90s gave us many Chloes and Harry and Josh.

My impression of the 00s is Ruby, Lily, Mia, Jake and Zac.

This is really interesting, without being judgemental about those names at all. How is that so many people alight on the same name as the obvious one for their child? There's always a sense of avoiding the most popular and moving on to the next thing but, as with fashion, there is a zeitgeist that somehow steers everyone in the same direction. There's also a conscious choice to return to the names of a previous era, so knowing what those were is helpful.

I'm part of this too. I've had names in my head for about 15 years which were quite unusual at the time but most of which have become much more popular recently. Because I've left til now to have children, I'm either going to have to drop a long-standing favourite, or accept that there will be three others in their year at school.

A lot of people in Ireland were named Mary but called something else entirely. A lot of priests told the parents at the altar that they were to baptise their child Mary but the parents would then go away and call the child what they wanted to in the first place.

Alfie
Archie
Bradley
Finn/Finlay
Jamie
Aaron
Callum
Kade/n
Kane
Kieran/on
Frankie
Brodie
Dylan
Lewis
Tyler
Kyle
Rhys/Reece
Ryan
Jake
Ashley/leigh
Gemma
Jade/n
Jordan/dayne/danne
Demi
Ainsley
Aimee
Abbie
Hayley
Danielle
Evie-May
Ruby
Paige
Mia
Chelsea
C/Kaitlin
Kadey/ie
Kalyleigh/Keeley
Candice
Lauren
Lexie
Madison
Ria/Rea/Rhea
Shannon

I think you need to read the OP again. Nothing was said about negative connotations. Some other posters have introduced that aspect, including yourself.

Personally I think the op was just badly phrased (sorry) the question is really what are the names of our children's generation which will be out of favour by the time they name theirs. Answer is probably most of them bar those that have crossed generations before (the elizabeths etc). They will no more name their children after their classmates than we have done.
However what can be interpreted from the question is which names are going to have the negative class connotations that we associate with names like Sharon and Tracey.
Whilst many of us have used currently popular names very few would like to believe they have saddled their dc with those negative connotations. I think it is unjustified to call them cutesy or overused - that is subjective. They are simply the popular names of a generation.

When we named our children we never considered their uk popularity - just whether we knew anyone with the name or not and whether we liked it. As it turns out uk wide all of my dc's names are in the top 100 (Inc mn) we still know of no others in our community though.

So... Whilst I felt for the four Claire Louise's in my class at school, I never viewed them as having a negative asset in their name in terms of class connotation.

There is a massive difference between a popular name and one that saddles an individual with negative characteristics.

Using a popular name marks out your child as of it's generation - nothing more or less.

Tis all

I love Siofra as well and I only know two, one my age and one 13 year old.

Ava
grace
evie
Ellie

Kai
Jake
max
alfie

Lauren, Aaron and Ethan are all lovely names IMO. No negative connotations at all for me!

I like the names Aaron and Ethan too.

I don't mind names, which could possibly be considered chavvy, by some people (such as Lauren or Ethan), it's the names that have been 'demonised' (possibly too strong a word), and labelled by everyone, such as Kai and Chantelle, I tried to avoid.

My daughter is called Lauren, and I have heard this name used in this bracket, but I love it, and I think when you really love a name, you just don't care, whether there has been an Eastenders, Little Britain, Towie person.

Lauren is a lovely name and quite class-neutral IMO. Agree with you about liking some names regardless. I really liked Aaron and Ethan when I was expecting DS but was shouted down by DH (and everyone else) as they are apparently chavvy :(

So glad that none of the names of self/DS or DH have been mentioned!! All long term classics.

Goes off looking smug, to polish good taste credentials

I'm a child of the 60's and most of the names of my contemporaries seem really rare these days. I'm thinking Jane, Sarah, Rosemary, Beverley, Julie, Anne, Louise, Linda, Alison, Helen and yes I have to admit it, Sharon & Michelle.

I went to school with two Wayne's. They are both really lovely, and have good jobs (one is a pilot), and the fact their name falls in the Darren and Gary category, has not affected them.

Popular names of today aren't the same as the sharon and tracy names of today.

when I was growing up, sharon and Tracy, Wayne and kevin were generally from a certain background. there were loads of them, but there were also loads of Catherines, Sarahs and James and Davids. Rightly or wrongly judgments were made about the names.

Todays Toms will not be the same as todays erm Jayden's even though Tom is probably more of a popular name. (I tried to pick inoffensive names there, but sorry if I have offended someone - fwiw my dcs names are mentioned in this thread). As ever in this country/on these threads it's class based. I did know a very posh Jason and a very middle class Sharon - she was very embarrassed about her name sadly.

Yes, I know two very lovely Sharon's.

I think certain names are already Sharon and Tracay names - Chantelle and Chelsea (from the 1990s), Leanne and Kayleigh (from the 1980s), etc.

I suspect Amelia and Ruby, may be the Louise and Claire equivalents, rather than Sharon and Tracy?

My daughter is called Lauren, and I have heard this name used in this bracket, but I love it, and I think when you really love a name, you just don't care, whether there has been an Eastenders, Little Britain, Towie person.

I actually gave her one of the classics, as a middle name - not wanting to out myself but it is one of Charlotte, Elizabeth, Catherine - just in case she grew up, not liking her name.

Well said startail. My children have names that, at the time I named them, were all pretty unusual and under-used, but not necessarily unheard of. One of them (the eldest, who is 19) has remained under-used, although it is definitely a classic and a pretty popular name. (oh fuck it, I'll say it - he is Rory)

The second has a name that was an old classic that was long-due a resurgence, I had never heard of another child called it, but it went on to become extremely popular and ubiquitous later, when he was around 5-10, then it went on the wane a bit, thankfully. But there are enough of them now that it will always be a run of the mill name for his generation. He is a Dave, or a Steve or a Mark! But his middle name is Riley - very unusual for a boy of 17, but very trendy and dare I say 'chav' for a boy of under 4. I had wanted to call him Riley as a first name, but too many people said it didn't go with Rory, and it was just a bit too way out there for most people, so I chickened out. Anyway, I remember everyone falling over themselves over the years to say what a great, unusual, funky name Riley was - and now look! This is where being funky and unusual gets you! Your child has the Chav name.

DS3 has another highly unusual name which I first encountered when I was about 21 although I didn't have him until I was 33, and I carried it around on the back burner all those years. He is 12 now and I have never met another one, although I have heard through the grapevine that there a few knocking around aged about 5 or 6, but it still remains pretty unusual. If you put it through the Facebook search engine he is only one of two. But that will change. I think it runs the risk of becoming another Riley but I don't care because I love it and I had him first!

If only we had a crystal ball......right now if I had my time again I'd call my children things like Julian and Penelope, but I would have snorted out loud at those names when my babies were born.

Yes, but if your friends at school weren't ALL called either Sarah, Susan, Rachel, Nicola or Clare i.e. if parents then had used a larger variety of names, then these wouldn't feel dated to the 1970s.

This 'dating' to a particular era only happens when many parents choose the same names at the same time.

Names date, because you don't use the names of your peer group. Who wants to be called the same name as their teacher or their friends mum.
Therefore, my lot aren't Mary, Margaret, Christine because our mum's were,

DDs aren't called Jackie, Claire, Sarah, Susan, Rachel, Linda, Nicola or Tracy because I couldn't move for them at school.

Classic names like Catharine, Elizabeth and Charlotte with a choice of nn will always be with us. I hope some of the short cutsie ones vanish.

As others have said it's impossible to guess what will be the Sharon and Tracy of today, because something as to enter popular culture to create them.

(The only Sharon I knew was a very nice unchavy intelligent farmers daughter. Two out of three Tracys didn't deserve the label either.)

I would agree that the cutesy type names so so popular recently (for boys and girls) e.g. Lily, Evie, Ellie, Tilly, Milly, Molly, Poppy, Archie, Alfie, Charlie already sound overdone to my ears. These names become popular very quickly and I think this is why they'll fall out of fashion quickly too.

Same with clothes - anything 'trendy' (e.g. bell bottom jeans in the 70s or Ugg boots recently) rise in popularity very quickly and everyone follows the trend so they reach saturation point and people get tired of them and a new trend emerges.

More 'timeless' clothes (e.g. a navy polo shirt) never become that popular and therefore never fall out of favour.

I personally prefer the latter, both with clothes and my children's names .

"I think classic, trad royal and Biblical names would never fall into this category even when they are the most frequently given" - spot on Edith.

Yes. But the reason for that is that they never become over-popular, and neither do they ever fall completely out of favour. It still has little to do with class. Ok, so most people of a higher socio-economic group would tend to do one of two things: either pick a total classic, or buck trends and go for something highly individual. But the point is that those highly individual names become aspirational and eventually they become the trend. So they become the Sharon and the Tracey. It doesn't mean they necessarily started off as 'common'.