Chloe- classic & traditional vs "chavvy"?!

I'm a Chloe, nearly 30. I've only ever met 1 other Chloe and she's at my son's nursery and is 2 so that's a bit weird. I love it though, I love the nicknames/shortenings I get from it as well. Definitely not chavvy. I think it's classic and will stay that way.

I love Chloe, I think it's a really pretty name. It was popular when DS1 was born in the late 90'S.

I think it's timeless

I wouldn't think anything of it Pemba, because there's a difference between names that are classic and those that are popular.

Helen, Sarah and Catherine have been very popular names for centuries- they might also have been commonly used in the 1980s, but that popularity doesn't tie them to a particular decade like Chloe's does.

My son's name sounds fresh for being dated iykwim. It is a 40 - 55 year old's name. So it sounds a bit surprising on a child. Not traffic stoppingly surprising but...............not another Harry, Max or Sam

People on mumsnet (and possibly in real life too, I don't know) do get a bit fixated on the whole "dated" vs. "timeless" thing, but almost all names are generational to some extent. Obviously some more than others, but actual cross-generational names that aren't easily identifiably to a certain generation are extremely rare.

For boys names that have consistently been in the top 50 for the last 100 years or so (rather than in then out again after just a decade or two), you have Thomas, Charles, William, James, Joseph and Michael.

For girls you have Elizabeth, and..... Nope, that's the only one I can find on the ONS website.

www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc363/babyindex.html

So what would you think if someone now named their daughter Sarah (or Helen, or Catherine)?

It will date because there will be fresher names getting popular and the Chloes named now will be at the tail end of the popularity surge.

For a name that was practically invented in the particular period, say Kimberley, you could say it was now dated.

Chloe is a classic name with Greek origins, etc. I like it a lot, along with Zoe

Gladys would have been dated for someone of your age, or Doris or Edna, something like that.

Doris is also a name with Greek origins. And wasn't invented in the last period it happened to be popular in (the UK).
And Edna is actually biblical... (And Irish, I believe.)

Bit dated sounding to me- an acquaintance named her DD Chloe about two years ago and I remember thinking it was a bit 90s-retro then.

Sarah and Helen are classic and don't really sound dated. Karen and Lindsay are dated.
Isla and Mia are pretty but so popular. Darcie is probably from Darcie Bussell. I don't like the name Darcie/Darcy/Darcey at all and can't see any appeal.

Of course 'Chloe' is dated - it goes back to the New Testament.
It was a Greek name - Khloe and used to represent Demeter , the Goddess of Fertility.
It is IMO a lovely CLASSIC name and will it date ?? obviously not !!!

Chloe seems dated to me.

But then again the Noahs/Olivias/Oscars/Henrys/Lilys etc of today will probably become synonymous with the 2010s.

I have a Chloe who is now 27. It was pretty unusual back then.

Well no Olivias I think, but we were aware of the name and thought it was nice. Darcie/Darcy as a girls' name is made up, and only in recent years. Isla used to be very unusual, except maybe in Scotland.

I guess you were born in the 60s like me then. But Sarah and Helen are still classic names. Lindsay and Karen not so much.

and how about Isla, Mia, Darcie/Darcy/Darcey?

I was at school with Sarahs, Claires, Lindsays, Helens and Karens, and you can probably guess my age from that.

How many Olivias were you at school with Pemba?

Isabel (whichever spelling) was never dated. I was born in the 60s and only knew a couple of contemporaries with the name, I don't think anyone at school thought of it as dated. I always thought it was pretty and unusual (well it was then!). Gladys would have been dated for someone of your age, or Doris or Edna, something like that.

I still disagree - I have a name that's always been around (has multiple (valid) spellings, but is an old name - along the lines off 'necessary on a bike?' ). But it was still badly dated when I was given it in the early 70s.

Even old names come in and out of fashion - if they go through a peak in popularity, which Chloe absolutely did - then they will sound dated when they inevitably drop out of favour.

For a name that was practically invented in the particular period, say Kimberley, you could say it was now dated. But Chloe has always been around, so is a rarer classic. Just because there was a surge of popularity in the 80s doesn't then make it dated IMO. The same could be said for a name like Sarah, very popular in the 60s and 70s, less popular now, but still classic.

And sorry, but sheep-like was because some people on here just seem to vaguely think, 'oh there were a lot of Chloes around in the 80s', and can't be bothered to know anything more about it. In the same sort of way that eg. other posters criticise a poster who suggests an unusual but legitimate spelling of a name They don't know, and they can't be bothered to find out.

Its a biblical name. I think it was particularly popular in the 90s/00s but its fairly timeless, wouldn't think of it as chavvy at all

It sounds dated to me. There's nothing sheepish about that btw, anything that was very fashionable and then falls out of fashion becomes 'dated'.

I prefer more timeless and less popular names.

It brings to mind Chloe Mafia

In our school of 320 pupils there's only 1 Chloe. And she's not from a "chavvy" family at all.

Not classy but certainly not chavvy