'Dated' names

I’m one of the Emma/Sarah/Rachel/Helens of the 70s and 80s but since don’t feel our names have dated badly. They are less popular now but not jarring..

I’m one too but born in 1960 and I do know a few more recent ones too so I agree they’re harder to pin down datewise.

Mine isn’t dated in the strictest sense as it’s Biblical but there are just so many women with my name that it just sounds unimaginative and boring. I don’t mind too much as I was named after my maternal great grandmother who my late DM adored.

Maybe in the foreseeable future but “ever again” is extreme 😂
My parents see names like Violet as so old fashioned and are surprised they’re back in popularity. So you never know how such names will sound to future generations.

I am in my 50s and remember thinking that the boy at school that changed his name/used his middle name from Charlie to Ian was very sensible. I couldn't imagine that name on a 10 yr old.
We do live in more diverse societies now so there are more names to chose from.

Deborah will come back I think.

Names I can’t see ever being used again as they’re just too dated:

Lorraine
Beverley
Denise
Deborah
Yvonne

Nigel
Derek
Gary
Wayne
Dean

Fair enough. I forgot about the abdication meaning she wasn’t direct line. But also worth remembering what we consider major and minor royals now differs greatly to 90 years ago. The royal family has had to trim the edges to fit what is acceptable to modern day Britain, historically a larger amount of core royals was fine.

I’m not suggesting Margaret hadn’t been popular, simply that it isn’t timeless, which you seem to agree with. I just don’t think the royal family can be used as an example of timeless names as there are too many “except for”, the queen children alone have a 1 of 4 timeless hit rate, 2 of 4 if you include Charles as timeless (it’s on the edge for me).

Margaret was the top girl's name for decades, and only dropped out of the top 100 in the 1960s

@SummaLuvin, she was the daughter of a king but when she was named she wasn't.

She was the daughter of the king's 2nd eldest son. Margaret was 5 her uncle became king. George VI didn't become king until December 1936, when Margaret was 6.

Margaret was very popular for decades, and names drop out of favour when people know many with the name. There weren't many Margarets my age because everyone seemed to have a mum or nan or aunt with he name.

I had two aunts called Margaret but they went by different nicknames, and lots of girls at school had Margaret as a middle name.

I had a dog called Peggy

She was a fairly minor royal at her birth - her father was the younger son and in 1930 it was still fully expected that the line would go through the Prince of Wales, later Edward VIII. She was the equivalent of Beatrice or Eugenie in modern terms.

You could argue that Margaret is back, it might be my personal dislike of getting in the way there. But for a name to be 'back in' it has to first go out, showing it is not timeless name and does date. I went to school with a Margaret and it was considered hideously old fashioned then, which to be fair was 15-20 years ago.

She was never in line to the throne but your previous criteria was "kings and queens and their children" - she is the daughter of a King. As the only other sibling of Elizabeth she would have been considered very important to succession at the point of her birth - incase some tragedy ended Elizabeths life early, or she chose abdicated. She would not have been classes as a 'minor' royal.

Margaret is back in.

Margot, Maggie, Peggy, Daisy are forms of Margaret.

Princess Marg was named when she wasn't in direct line to the throne. Her grandfather was the king, and her father was 2nd in line, and wasn't expecting to be king one day

She also had the current go to girl's middle name

Even looking at the Monarch/next in line and their kids there is no guarantee of timelessness, they choose classic names, but that's not the same thing.

William and Harry (Henry) - both timeless, maybe not Harry, but Henry is.
Charles, Anne, Edward, and Andrew - Edward timeless, the other three dated.
Elizabeth, Margaret - Elizabeth timeless, Margaret is dated.

@ConstanceL, they are minor royals. I meant kings and queens and their children, not great grand-children. Harry Sussex and Andrew York's children can be excluded for this purpose

I like my name but it does signal to people what age I likely am. Annoyingly as well I was just at the end of the trend so most women with the name are about 10 years older.

My first and middle name have both been mentioned, and I didn't have to scroll very far 🙈
I hate my name, I don't know what my mum was thinking. I actually get embarrassed to say it aloud!

Biblical names do become dated but a core of them either stay current or a form of the name will. My contemporaries had NT names but now boys have OT names

John went out of favour but Jack became popular.
Mary went out but Marie became popular
etc

I'd say Royal family and Shakespeare is a fairly safe guide

I think if you want to avoid names that will date, from Edna to Kayden, you can't do better than go Biblical or Shakespearean.

[quote lhirault]@Comedycook As someone approaching 60 (and with a very dated 60s name) I can assure you that Maureen is more likely to be in her mid 70s than 60. It would have been considered very old fashioned when I was born (early 60s). [/quote]
And @NotAnotherHelen - my old college friendship group is still going strong. There is Maureen (yes!) Liz, Helen, Juliet and me.

I dislike my dated name. It's not a classic name that happened to be very popular during a certain period, which I feel is the main difference.

So Laura, Claire, Sarah, Rebecca, Louise, Rachel may be considered "80s/90s names", yet are classic IMO. Ditto Margaret, Susan, Deborah for the 50s/60s. Or Chloe, Jessica, Sophie, Isobel, Lily for the 2000s.

Louisa is a lovely name too.

My DD is Louisa. I'm actually wondering if it will have a revival with it apparently being a very popular character in the latest Disney film as a strong female character.