Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Baby names

Find baby name inspiration and advice on the Mumsnet Baby Names forum.

Original poster

So, which year's names are least appealing to parents naming in 2013

81 replies

JennyEnglish · 15/05/2013 15:26

Is it names that are 50 years old? Or is it less than that? some people were listing names that they couldn't imagine coming back, like Linda and Janet. I don't really dislike those. Jane is nice. Linda is pretty I think.

I think names I'd be really surprised to hear would be Suzanne and Nicola, Martin, Stephen.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Set a reminder
Wouldntyouliketoknow · 15/05/2013 19:56

I think Amber and Heather are still popular-ish (Amber more so).

Anything like Steve, Tracey, Sharon, Martin, Jill, Sue, Dawn.

I suppose names that you can imagine only a 40/50 year-old being called now!

forgetmenots · 15/05/2013 19:44

Amber is still popular!

Tiffany, that would be a shocker. Jeanette? Barbara? Janice? Nicola?

Linguaphile · 15/05/2013 18:07

I think I'd be most horrified if a friend named her baby something really 80s like Amber, Crystal, Tiffany, or Heather.

Original poster
JennyEnglish · 15/05/2013 15:47

Oh yes, Jodie and Cheryl, I'd think I'd misheard if I heard of a baby called Jodie or Cheryl. Not that they're worse than the vast majority of other names, but they'd be unexpected definitely.

The life span of a name can be 25 years, and yet, names that are only 50 years old can sound retro...... (some of them). so, I'm going to say names that were popular 35-40 years ago are the least expected.

OP posts:
MadBusLady · 15/05/2013 15:39

Michelle, Jodie, Cheryl and other 80s-tastic ones (but then Cheryl Cole must have some influence?)

And yes, please no more Daves, Britain is full.

AuntieStella · 15/05/2013 15:29

I think it needs to be more than 50 years. We're not ready for another round of Nigels!