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

Why are Albert, Stanley and Violet OK but.....

86 replies

seeker · 14/03/2009 10:55

....Brian, Kevin and Sharon aren't?

Is it that your Grandparents's names have gone round the clock and are cool again, while your parent's names have't, and the next generation will be populated by Tracys, Colins and Garys?

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Set a reminder
piscesmoon · 16/03/2009 08:10

I would think it was slightly less than 100 yrs. This is why any Rubies are 80+ or under 10yrs and why Brendas are 60+ and will be back in about 20 yrs. Perhaps boys are longer which is why people are only just beginning to think that Ernest is a possibility. (I can't imagine a nursery with lots of little Ernests!)

TinkerBellesMumandFiFi2 · 15/03/2009 23:37

I can't remember which way round it is but names cycle on 100 years for one sex and 110 years for the other. Does that help answer the OP?

There are some names though that should never come back

frazzledoldbag · 15/03/2009 23:27

I know a baby Bernard. And a baby John.

Original poster
seeker · 15/03/2009 22:57

One of my ds's best friends is Richard.

OP posts:
piscesmoon · 15/03/2009 20:59

Richard is a classic name- there are always a few.

littlelamb · 15/03/2009 20:02

My dad is a Kevin and as much as I wanted to 'honour' him somehow in ds's name I just couldn't do it

PuppyMonkey · 15/03/2009 20:02

Puffling, there is a little boy in my dd's nursery called Richard. He's not even two yet.

DeeBlindMice · 15/03/2009 20:02

LMAO at schneebly's agreement

That is brilliant. I can't believe you agreed to it, or that he held you to it, or that you didn't tell him to piss off.

Actually I also have a bit of a soft spot for the name Alan and always have ever since I was a child.

puffling · 15/03/2009 20:00

Imagine baby Roger and Richard

piscesmoon · 15/03/2009 19:53

The only difference is about 50 yrs.

PuppyMonkey · 15/03/2009 19:48

Albert, Stanley and Violet are TERRIBLE.

So are Brian, Kevin and Sharon.

There is no difference.

wombleprincess · 15/03/2009 19:47

harry isnt historical. henry is historical.
harry is just posh nickname commonly given to people called henry, which now has imho become a posh wannabe name.

piscesmoon · 15/03/2009 17:54

I expect that in another 20 yrs people will be saying that Brenda and Malcolm are lovely names! Nothing will surprise me after people thinking Ernest and Elsie are lovely!

woodenspoon2 · 15/03/2009 11:40

Steven Pinker's book The Stuff of Thought has a good analysis of this generational thing with names - why all scientists of his generation are called Steve eg....

lunamoon2 · 15/03/2009 11:30

Agree with Lemontart and Grumpy.

My great aunt was called Isobel but only ever referred to as "Bella" as Isobel was seen as too frumpy. I grew up loving the name and it was very uncommon then!!!! now look what has happened.
Incidently my grandma was an Agnes and I wanted to use this as dds middle name but oh flatly refused as far too "old grannyfied" at the time. Sometimes wish I had stuck to my guns

Nancy66 · 15/03/2009 11:01

It's more to do with class than fashion - Michelle, Trevor, Pauline, Barry are working class names. Now the working class prefer to have their own style of name - ie: Maddison, Riley, Taylor etc.

RachieB · 14/03/2009 22:42

Stanley just reminds me of the book "Flat Stanley" lol

edam · 14/03/2009 21:09

That's because Harry is an aristocratic/historical name. While Barry is the name of a less than classy part of South Wales.

wombleprincess · 14/03/2009 21:05

i am always amused that harry is so common but barry is so hated... its just fashion at the end of the day.

Original poster
seeker · 14/03/2009 20:52

me too, piscesmoon - Stanley is a particular bugbear - but it's you and me contra mundum!

OP posts:
piscesmoon · 14/03/2009 20:47

I don't think Albert, Stanley and Violet are OK. I hate that era of names.

frazzledoldbag · 14/03/2009 20:43

[secretly cringes at the thought of grandchildren called Doreen, Maureen and Trevor ]

frazzledoldbag · 14/03/2009 20:42

Brian, Kevin and Sharon are what all the kids currently being called Ruby, Olivia and Alfie will call their children. I think that's just what happens.

Grumpyoldcaaaaaaaa · 14/03/2009 12:22

Lemontart

DH's Nana is Isabel Edith but uses 'Edith' rather than Isabel.

Schneebly at your descriptions of your boys' names

schneebly · 14/03/2009 11:44

He was named after my brother - to be honest I didn't nmame him, my DH did after we made a stupid, stupid agreement.

When we were first together and talking about babies we might have in the future he said "can I name any boys we have and you can name the girls?"

I agreed thinking that either I would have a girl or he wouldn't insist on sticking to the agreement. I was wrong I have 2 boys and he named both of them! I have one that sounds like a balding, middle aged accountant and one that sounds like an old Scottish farmer We are Scottish at least so it is not so bad.