Which names are considered classic? Just biblical or royal?

Perdita is shakespearian rather than classic. I'd guess it to be an upper-middle class sort of name.

I think it also depends a little on how well known it is within society. A well known name, with a well established spelling, which is unlikely to raise any eyebrows when you say what your name is is more classic. So for instance Perdita I wouldn't say was classic. James, Alice, Anna, Matthew, I all would say are classic

A name whereby you can guess the age is not a timeless classic.

I agree. Because such a name must have been trendy/fashionable at a time and therefore can't be a classic!

To me a classic name is a name that's been around for a long time but has never been very fashionable or trendy:

Anna
Antonia
Beatrice
Elizabeth
Catherine
Valentina
Helena
Charlotte

Frederick
Thomas
Quentin
George
Magnus
Vincent
Dominic

But there's lots more!

I think it’s fascinating that names like Parnell and Fortune have completely disappeared!

Even more interesting (to me, anyway!) is that these names are still popular among Afro-Caribbean communities, even though they have mostly dropped out of use among white British and American families

A lot of ‘classic’ names are Norman in origin, so William, Henry, Emma, Richard, Alice.
Names like Roger, Maud, Mathilda, whilst Norman, have have waxed and waned in popularity so I would not consider ‘classic’ in the same way.

Others of biblical origin, like John, Jane (Joan the most popular variant in the Middle Ages,) Mary etc have hung about for centuries alongside other Saints’ names, before the lesser known Old Testament and Virtue names of the Puritans that @florascotia2 mentioned.

I can only really think of Edward as a ‘classic’ name Anglo-Saxon in origin. Edith is a beauty, but has experienced varying popularity.

Some other lovely old names like Florence and Mathilda have had a recent popularity surge after disuse and so I would not consider them classic.
Names like Gillian, Denise, Barbara, Joyce which we I would consider of my Mum’s generation have been in use for centuries (see above link) but I would not consider classic.

www.behindthename.com/. is my favourite name site. It gives the etymology and family links of most names.

@florascotia
www.s-gabriel.org/names/christian/fairnames/givennames.html#women

I like this site which lists popular names 500 or so years ago. Mary, Jane, Catherine, Elizabeth, Emma etc already very widespread in 1500s.
I think it’s fascinating that names like Parnell and Fortune have completely disappeared!

As other posters have said, names drop in and out of fashion. Many of the names that we consider 'classic' today are remembered from when they were popular in the 18th century, eg 'Jane Austen' names such as Mary, Catherine, Emma, Elizabeth, and, indeed, Jane. Before that, for example, saints' names and some local (non-Latin) names were popular in the Middle Ages; Old Testament names and virtue names were popular in Protestant circles in the 16th/17th centuries, classical names first became fashionable among wealthier families around the same time.

Shakespeare invented several names; he also used names from his very wide reading - everything from ancient history to trendy Italian literature and north-European folk-tales and legends.

Flower names became very popular in the 19th century. Names of legendary heroes (Lancelot etc) were also revived then.

A very good source for UK names is British Baby Names - here is their list of popular medieval names, as an example:
www.britishbabynames.com/blog/2012/06/medieval-favourites.html It is interesting to see that quite a lot of medieval boys' names and some (though fewer) girls' names are still used today. I suppose those are all technically 'classic' - though they include 'Alan', 'Dennis' and 'Roger', which would probably not be regarded favourably by many people today.

Quentin is an ancient name that was quite rare for centuries but became popular in the early 20th cent, after a US president used it for his son, who sadly died in WWI.

Alice
Anne
Catherine
Constance
Emma
Elizabeth
Eleanor
Frances
Helen/Helena
Jane
Katherine
Lucy
Margaret
Mary
Ruth
Rachel
Sarah
Susannah

For boys:

John
James
William
Henry
Thomas
Christopher
Alexander
George
Richard
Edward
Robert
Hugh
Charles
Peter

I would define ‘classic’ as names that have remained in regular use by all social classes for hundreds of years without huge surges or dips in popularity.

I would say that some of the names are classic but would be limited to certain classes.
Tabitha is from the bible
Perdita is from Shakespeare.

I wouldn't class Evelyn as a classic, Eve and Adam are but are not likely to be distributed evenly through the classes.
Some of the names listed are a bit 'Jilly Cooper'.

Many of the Jasons (much older than me) I know were privately educated - but the name filtered down the classes until it dropped out of favour.

I agree about Louise. Claire, Rachel and Rebecca too.

Louise's popularity in the 70s was just a blip, though. I'd expect it to regain popularity again in the next generation or so

Posh classic names (to me) are things like Tabitha and Perdita for girls, Quentin and Tristan for boys

I think Louise is not 'ageless' as it was super trendy in the 1970s. Any name that becomes very fashionable isn't a real classic anymore.

Classic names include

Elizabeth
Catherine
Anna
Helena
Alexandra

Alexander
Quentin
Adam
James
Thomas
Marcus

They are names which are ageless and classless; names you can’t make any assumptions around:

James, William, Henry, Edward, Adam
Caroline, Catherine, Eleanor, Louise, Anna

I think of classic names as ones which have been in reasonable use for hundreds of years. They may have had peaks and troughs but have never really disappeared or been number one either. For girls I think Catherine, Elizabeth, Alice are examples. For boys, James, Thomas, William maybe.

I would argue that a truly classic name is generally also pretty classless.

I had a great aunt called Evelyn. I think that's quite posh - she was quite posh.

Eve is classic but not posh

Classic names tend to have their roots in the Bible (eg Sarah) or used by royal families over the years (eg William)

As pp said, if you can imagine it on a 1 year old, 50 year old and 80 year old, it's more likely to be a classic than a passing fad

Names like Darcey will date as before Darcey Bussell there weren't any.
Occupation or Surname like Taylor and Cooper names will date.

And with a classic name they don't get tarnished when overused.
I'm of the age group where Sarah was very popular, but it's still nice, but names like Chloe and Freya seem overused when there are several.

Nick name type names are not timeless classics.
So no to Archie, Alfie, Freddie.

Names that don't relate to a specific date. So Elizabeth could be 100 or 1. The same with Catherine.
A name whereby you can guess the age is not a timeless classic.