How will this name date?

The Sally cycle hasn't turned enough yet. If it's a name associated with our age group, or our parents' age group (Beverley, Patricia, Janet, Anne, Barbara, Shirley, Margaret, etc, etc) then it's out for us. It has to be our grandparents or further back.

tunaday, I have to say, I really disagree with your thoughts on Lily. It's easy to say Tracey and Dawn sound dated because they have gone through their fashionable stage, exited it and now sound tired and dull.

Whereas Lily is still widely used, it's hard to imagine for some that one day it will reach that stage, too. Everyone has agreed that it'll go through peaks and troughs of use (it's doing that right now), but because it is is being so widely used right now, it is bound to fall from fashion, as anything fashionable inevitably does in the search for the new big thing. :)

I think in a generation's time it will be very easy to pick a Lily's age! It will be a 'Mum' name then and everyone will be avoiding it because tastes have moved on and yes, it will sound dated.

I keep referring back to my own name, which is a very old name going through a massive resurgence right now - but was massively dated when I was given it in the 70s. Just because a name is old, doesn't prevent it from joining the ranks of cyclical names.

Was it that popular, it passed me by. I can only think of a very few Sallys I've known, and one of those was my Mum's age (1930s). (I think she was really a Sarah, come to think of it.)

Unlike Tilly, Milly, Lily, Sally hasn't made a comeback excactly because it was SO widely used in the 1970s...so the current parents find it 'dull' and 'too much like their own peers'. But Lily, Milly and all the other cutesy names sound 'fresh' to our ears as we weren't surrounded by them when we were growing up. (Our kids will probably find such names very unexciting for their own kids!).

I agree Percy. Wonder why Sally hasn't made acome back.

Ah, Sally - that's a traditional nn for Sarah anyway. More common as a standalone name in modern times, I think, although I did used to know a Sally whose name was really Sarah.

Now you would think that Sally would be sitting alongside the Millys, Tillys and Lilys at present, but apparently not so.

I have a name that was only given to doddery old ladies or the very upper class in the early 80's and is now experiencing a comeback.

When choosing my DS's names I tried to envisage a boy, a teenager, a young man, a middle aged man & an elderly man with that name. If I couldn't see it, it was instantly vetoed. DS1's is probably quite faddy really (it's a surname first name) but I loved it. DS2's is an unusual but simple name with Irish and Germanic heritage.

We compromised by using family names as middle names. Very standard saints names. That way if when they are older they dislike their unusual first name they can swap.

As Lily isn't a 'new' name like Tracey, Dawn etc were in their day, I think it will 'wear' well. It's traditional and suits all ages. OK it's popular at the moment but it will probably go through troughs and peaks in its use but I don't think it will be easy to guess a Lily's age in the same way as you could a Tracey or a Dawn.

I'm a Sarah. Born in 1960. My Mum named me after her Grandma. Her Mum was totally against it saying it was 'old fashioned' and wanted her to call me Sandra or Sally, which were both popular then. My Mum stuck to her guns and went ahead with Sarah. It's not the most exciting name in the world I agree, but I like it and knowing my Mum called me after her much loved Grandma makes it special to me. I think it would be pretty easy to guess the age of a Sandra now and to a lesser extent a Sally.

I think Lily already sounds a bit tired and dated for the younger generation. Sorry.

Apparently Claire is a very fashionable name in America amongst middle class parents at the moment as is Gemma which to me is the ultimate 1970's/80's name. Fascinating how cultural perceptions of a name can be so dramatically different.

Interesting thread. I very much expect the recent fashionable cutesy names - Lily, Milly, Tilly, Evie, Alfie, Albie, Archie etc that have been SO popular over the past few years to start to decline in popularity. Our children are likely to find them very '2010s' .

Also agree that there are lots and lots of classic, timeless names that don't 'date the owner' as they were never super trendy. People need to start to become a little braver and look at ALL the names available, not just the top 100 (or oven top 500)!

Totally agree with the above. There are far more undateable names than dateable ones. On the one hand you have a few instances of hugely popular names, and on the other ..... all the rest.

Re Sarah, looking around my wider family there is/was pretty much one in every decade, the eldest currently being in her 70s, ie born in the 1940s.

"There are very few names that on hearing them you can't guess what decade they were most likely born."

I disagree too. There are hundreds of classic, normal names outside the top 100 names. Would you be able 'date' these names, for example:

Antonia
Charlotte
Cecilia
Anna
Francesca
Maria
Valentina

Dominic
Quentin
Alexander
Adam
Miles
Roman

My kids' names are included here .

I agree with Soddoff that "There are heaps and heaps of good names going to waste out there, people!!

There is a difference between cyclical and faddy.

I agree there are afew, only a few, names that remain timelessly classy, and I would place Sarah, Elizabeth, Emma in there.

The fact that during the 70s/80s Sarah and Emma became uber-popular doesn't change them from being timelessly classy.

Lily (IMO) along with all the other old-lady-chic names like Molly, Daisy etc is faddy. And unfortunately, because of the dreaded hyphen it will be a long time coming before it will be considered classy.

Re:Helena, that has become quite popular in recent years I think? I prefer Helen. (which is on my classy/timeless list)

For boys I'd put James, Thomas, George etc on that list. not though all the old-men-chic names like Arthur, Henry etc.

Baldrick

I think a lot of the names you have mentioned have been timeless so far but having a peak at the moment so may have a drop off after. They'll then become cyclical I guess. Same with my ds3s name Isaac, I tried to explain this to dh who chose because I think we have managed properly timeless names with our other three

Eleanora is gorgeous, as is Eleanor/Elinor. Ticks all the boxes.

Samuel goes over well with everyone, at least in my experience of having one. :)

I love Helena, but we must use Eleanora for a someday DD, and that's too close.

George is a great name! Yes, I see what you mean about Arthur. In theory, it should be pretty solidly classic, but something tells me it could be about to have quite a peak of popularity.

Helena is my DD's name. :) DS's middle name is on the list I gave you. I haven't suggested his first name as it is very unfashionable right now. I'm hoping, like my own parents, that I'm a generation ahead and by the time he hits his 20s/30s and is in his prime, it'll be the height of cool.

DD's middle name is a true classic, but of the Sarah ilk. It had a surge of popularity during our parents' generation, so will definitely sound a bit dated to some.

All their names - first and middle - are family names so I didn't have quite the free reign to choose a totally un-dateable name for DS. In any case he's known universally by a diminutive, and it just is him.

Samuel is top of our list for a hypothetical second DS.

I loved Finn for years. :( The part of Minnesota where I grew up was heavily settled by Finns and almost all of us have Finnish heritage and are proud of it. Finn was my go-to boy's name, and everyone thought I was mad.

And now...it can never be.

Yes great names Sodoff. I like Hugo, Hamish, Angus. Gabriel and Quentin. I have a George which I think is reasonably classic and isn't very popular where I am.

For DS2 (if I ever have one) I am thinking something like Arthur or Hugo but I think Arthur could become faddy although where I live, there would be virtually no baby Arthurs born. We are a bit behind the UK in the naming trends. People are still with the Oscars and Noahs and Finns.

I just think there is a much bigger pool of girls names, which seem to be untapped at the moment. Everyone goes for the Rubys, Avas, Lilys, Evas, Sophies etc (all of which are lovely names) but forget about all the other great names that are out there. I think Louisa and Helena are perfect examples of these. I also like Alexandra and Elizabeth, although Elizabeth is probably a little more common.

I went with Sam for my son for this reason...but I think it's one of those 80 or 8 names, not in between.

He's a Sam down to the ground though. :)

Hi emmy - boys names are hard, right?! Off the top of my head (not all of these are to my taste and some of them have definite class connotations which may or may not write them off for you, but for starters)...

Rafe
Ewan
Hugh / Hugo
Evan
Jude
Edmond
Julian
Robert
Dominic
Benedict
Hamish
Angus
Tobias / Toby
Louis (pronounced Loo-ee natch )
Rupert
Rowan
Gabriel
Mason
Ross
Quentin

I reckon if you heard one of these names you'd have a hard time telling the age of the owner.

Sodoff - totally agree with your posts.

What boys names would you suggest as un-dateable, not "trendy" names? I find it difficult to straddle the line between boring but classic names (James, Thomas etc) and "trendy" names (Felix, Oscar etc). Girl's names are much easier - as you listed in your previous post there are some lovely, classic underused girls names - Helena, Louisa, Margaret, Anna etc. But boy's names are much harder!

"There are very few names that on hearing them you can't guess what decade they were most likely born."

I disagree. I think there are loads of names which are un-dateable. I listed a few of them earlier in the thread.

The crux is, though, that not many people choose them.

There are heaps and heaps of good names going to waste out there, people!!

Butter I think the reason Claire/Clare/etc didn't weather the storm so well is because it's a relatively new name, unlike Sarah and Emma. The newer names tend to either fade or join the ranks of other cyclical names. It's basically a good example of exactly what the OP is trying to avoid - a faddy name.

A friend of my Mums, born in the late 1930s is a Clare, and I'd say she must have been part of the very early uptake of the name! Given that it really peaked in the 1970s.

I reckon Claire will have its day in the sun again, though. If you look at it without any preconceptions - as people will do in a couple of generations' time - it's a lovely name. Simple, elegant, unfrilly but feminine.

The fashion at the movement is for very feminine names, IMO. When we move away from the cutesy, twee 'ie/y' ending names and the 'a' ending names, Claire will have its place again. Other more solid names (names ending in consonants/consonant sounds!) will come back as well - Joanne, Karen, Helen, etc - all these names are eschewed right now, as the fashion is for much more frilly names. Obviously not everyone succumbs to fashion, but this is the trend at the moment, if you ask me.

I also agree that you can't say Sarah isn't a timeless name - I guess it just went through such a resurgence at one period, that it does maybe sound a bit 'dated' for want of a better word, for one particular generation (i.e. Gen X, born in the 70s). For other people it hasn't been tarnished through sheer overuse.

Lily, I'd say, is one of the cyclical names.

Haven't read the whole thread, but agreeing with Pecan; Sarah is one of the few names which hasn't moved out of the top 100 for over a century, pretty timeless. Not my personal taste, though.

Elizabeth, Catherine ,Charlotte are timeless a true classic.
Sarah i feel is the same as Emma and Alice almost there but not quite.
Boys Classics William,James,Thomas
There are very few names that on hearing them you can't guess what decade they were most likely born.