Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Baby names

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

What do you think are the Sharon/Tracy/Michelle names of this generation???

115 replies

YummyMummybee · 27/02/2012 13:46

Out of interest what do you think are the Sharon/Tracy/Michelles names of this generation. No offence to anyone with these names but when I was in school there was at least 3 of each in my class. It seems they really were only of my generation(I'm 30) & never made a revival. In particular Michelle is lovely.
I'm thinking
-Lily
-Daisy
-Poppy will not get carried on as classic names although fab in their own right are they too trendy???

Also for boys what would you suggest. I cant really think of boys names from my school years as I went to an all girls school-possibly Shane was v common but now don't hear very often
I'm thinking
-Finn
-Oscar
may not stand the test of time???

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
allyfe · 28/02/2012 13:39

Have to agree, I think that this type of thread is just a bit of a shame. I just scanned through it all thinking I hope my children's names aren't on this. They aren't although my daughters name could quite easily have turned up because it is often thrown up as 'too popular'.

It is not possible to really predict the next 'Sharon' and 'Tracey', because what you are trying to predict is names which are going to take on a horrible class-based caricature. Nobody would want their child's name to be a 'Sharon' or a 'Tracey', and so the fact that the names of people's children are being thrown around so casually is, as far as I'm concerned, unkind. It is the same level of unthinking unkindness as the thread a few days ago asking about the 'horrible names' from graveyards.

I do realise that the thread was not meant to be unkind, but taking something that parents have given to the children and labelling it as 'chavy' or 'Sharon-esq' is basically unkind, and unnecessary.

I'll get off my high horse now.

Ephiny · 28/02/2012 13:43

I'm 30 and I remember 2 Trac(e)y's and a Sharon at my school (have met a Sharran of my age as well). They were becoming less popular though, it was more Sarah, Claire, Louise, Jennifer etc.

I do think Sharon is a lovely name though, no idea why people seem to dislike it so much. It's not even overly popular now. I'd definitely consider using it.

Haziedoll · 28/02/2012 13:43

Emmyloo. Why should names have to be original?

You say that lots of names listed here aren't original but what about more traditional names such as Anna, Katherine, Henry and Thomas. They are all perfectly nice names but still lacking in originality.

Ephiny · 28/02/2012 13:44

Personally I suspect the cutesy names like Daisy, Poppy, Milly, Molly etc will start to look very dated in a decade or two. It's difficult to predict these things though!

Haziedoll · 28/02/2012 13:49

Ephiny. I think almost all names end up looking dated. I'm almost 40 and from my generation the only name that is still popular now is Lucy. Lots of other names that are perfectly nice and unchavvy are still of their time, e.g Stephen, Andrew, Mark, Helen, Caroline and Amanda.

CeliaDeBohun · 28/02/2012 14:00

Personally I suspect the cutesy names like Daisy, Poppy, Milly, Molly etc will start to look very dated in a decade or two. It's difficult to predict these things though!

Cutesy names already feel so overdone. I wouldn't be surprised if the tide starts turning sooner rather than later and 'cleaner' sounding names start to become more popular.

PercyFilth · 28/02/2012 14:01

what you are trying to predict is names which are going to take on a horrible class-based caricature

That was not what the OP said, and it hasn't featured in the majority of subsequent posts either.

mycatsaysach · 28/02/2012 14:02

iirc fat slags from viz were sandra and tracey

sharon and tracey from birds of a feather

LillianGish · 28/02/2012 14:02

"I think classic, trad royal and Biblical names would never fall into this category even when they are the most frequently given" - spot on Edith.

Haziedoll · 28/02/2012 14:05

Sharon is a biblical name.

EdithWeston · 28/02/2012 14:07

Sharon isn't a name in the Bible. It's a place. I was only taken up as a human name much later.

Haziedoll · 28/02/2012 14:09

Also not everyone wants to look to the royal family for inspiration. The latest addition to the royal family is little Savannah. I wonder what Lizzie thought of that choice of name?

mangomousse · 28/02/2012 14:23

At 46 I know of only one other person of my age with my name, however in the 80's it suddenly became very popular, likewise I had 5 Sarah's and 3 Catherine's in my class at school and now they are hardly ever used.

Both of my sons have names that are now very popular - they weren't when we named them it's just that everybody has realised what exceptionally good taste we have Grin

ChickensHaveNoLips · 28/02/2012 14:25

I don't get name snobbery. I have one DS with a very popular name, and one with a more unusual name. I love both names, and could not give a shiny shit what someone else thinks of them

mathanxiety · 28/02/2012 14:36

The DCs have all had Rachels, Sarahs, Catherines (Kate or Katie) and Margarets (Maggie) in their classes. DD4 has 3 Rachels and 2 Sarahs in her class. One of the Sarahs is a twin of one of the Rachels. In DS's class one of the 3 Rachels had an older sister named Sarah. DD1's class had twins Maggie and Katie and several others. Must be something in the water.

I have one DD with a very popular name and four whose names haven't been in the top 100 for ages, if ever. Not a worry for me either way. They are family names that meant a lot to me when I was naming them.

HillyWallaby · 28/02/2012 15:03

"I think classic, trad royal and Biblical names would never fall into this category even when they are the most frequently given" - spot on Edith.

Yes. But the reason for that is that they never become over-popular, and neither do they ever fall completely out of favour. It still has little to do with class. Ok, so most people of a higher socio-economic group would tend to do one of two things: either pick a total classic, or buck trends and go for something highly individual. But the point is that those highly individual names become aspirational and eventually they become the trend. So they become the Sharon and the Tracey. It doesn't mean they necessarily started off as 'common'.

othersideofchannel · 28/02/2012 15:15

I would agree that the cutesy type names so so popular recently (for boys and girls) e.g. Lily, Evie, Ellie, Tilly, Milly, Molly, Poppy, Archie, Alfie, Charlie already sound overdone to my ears. These names become popular very quickly and I think this is why they'll fall out of fashion quickly too.

Same with clothes - anything 'trendy' (e.g. bell bottom jeans in the 70s or Ugg boots recently) rise in popularity very quickly and everyone follows the trend so they reach saturation point and people get tired of them and a new trend emerges.

More 'timeless' clothes (e.g. a navy polo shirt) never become that popular and therefore never fall out of favour.

I personally prefer the latter, both with clothes and my children's names Smile.

startail · 28/02/2012 15:31

Names date, because you don't use the names of your peer group. Who wants to be called the same name as their teacher or their friends mum.
Therefore, my lot aren't Mary, Margaret, Christine because our mum's were,

DDs aren't called Jackie, Claire, Sarah, Susan, Rachel, Linda, Nicola or Tracy because I couldn't move for them at school.

Classic names like Catharine, Elizabeth and Charlotte with a choice of nn will always be with us. I hope some of the short cutsie ones vanish.

As others have said it's impossible to guess what will be the Sharon and Tracy of today, because something as to enter popular culture to create them.

(The only Sharon I knew was a very nice unchavy intelligent farmers daughter. Two out of three Tracys didn't deserve the label either.)

othersideofchannel · 28/02/2012 15:43

Yes, but if your friends at school weren't ALL called either Sarah, Susan, Rachel, Nicola or Clare i.e. if parents then had used a larger variety of names, then these wouldn't feel dated to the 1970s.

This 'dating' to a particular era only happens when many parents choose the same names at the same time.

HillyWallaby · 28/02/2012 15:53

Well said startail. My children have names that, at the time I named them, were all pretty unusual and under-used, but not necessarily unheard of. One of them (the eldest, who is 19) has remained under-used, although it is definitely a classic and a pretty popular name. (oh fuck it, I'll say it - he is Rory)

The second has a name that was an old classic that was long-due a resurgence, I had never heard of another child called it, but it went on to become extremely popular and ubiquitous later, when he was around 5-10, then it went on the wane a bit, thankfully. But there are enough of them now that it will always be a run of the mill name for his generation. He is a Dave, or a Steve or a Mark! But his middle name is Riley - very unusual for a boy of 17, but very trendy and dare I say 'chav' for a boy of under 4. I had wanted to call him Riley as a first name, but too many people said it didn't go with Rory, and it was just a bit too way out there for most people, so I chickened out. Anyway, I remember everyone falling over themselves over the years to say what a great, unusual, funky name Riley was - and now look! This is where being funky and unusual gets you! Your child has the Chav name. Hmm

DS3 has another highly unusual name which I first encountered when I was about 21 although I didn't have him until I was 33, and I carried it around on the back burner all those years. He is 12 now and I have never met another one, although I have heard through the grapevine that there a few knocking around aged about 5 or 6, but it still remains pretty unusual. If you put it through the Facebook search engine he is only one of two. But that will change. I think it runs the risk of becoming another Riley but I don't care because I love it and I had him first! Grin

If only we had a crystal ball......right now if I had my time again I'd call my children things like Julian and Penelope, but I would have snorted out loud at those names when my babies were born.

anewmotivatedme · 28/02/2012 16:01

Yes, I know two very lovely Sharon's.

I think certain names are already Sharon and Tracay names - Chantelle and Chelsea (from the 1990s), Leanne and Kayleigh (from the 1980s), etc.

I suspect Amelia and Ruby, may be the Louise and Claire equivalents, rather than Sharon and Tracy?

My daughter is called Lauren, and I have heard this name used in this bracket, but I love it, and I think when you really love a name, you just don't care, whether there has been an Eastenders, Little Britain, Towie person.

I actually gave her one of the classics, as a middle name - not wanting to out myself but it is one of Charlotte, Elizabeth, Catherine - just in case she grew up, not liking her name.

BeattieBow · 28/02/2012 16:01

Popular names of today aren't the same as the sharon and tracy names of today.

when I was growing up, sharon and Tracy, Wayne and kevin were generally from a certain background. there were loads of them, but there were also loads of Catherines, Sarahs and James and Davids. Rightly or wrongly judgments were made about the names.

Todays Toms will not be the same as todays erm Jayden's even though Tom is probably more of a popular name. (I tried to pick inoffensive names there, but sorry if I have offended someone - fwiw my dcs names are mentioned in this thread). As ever in this country/on these threads it's class based. I did know a very posh Jason and a very middle class Sharon - she was very embarrassed about her name sadly.

anewmotivatedme · 28/02/2012 16:03

I went to school with two Wayne's. They are both really lovely, and have good jobs (one is a pilot), and the fact their name falls in the Darren and Gary category, has not affected them.

mateysmum · 28/02/2012 16:09

So glad that none of the names of self/DS or DH have been mentioned!! All long term classics.

Goes off looking smug, to polish good taste credentials

I'm a child of the 60's and most of the names of my contemporaries seem really rare these days. I'm thinking Jane, Sarah, Rosemary, Beverley, Julie, Anne, Louise, Linda, Alison, Helen and yes I have to admit it, Sharon & Michelle.

CeliaDeBohun · 28/02/2012 16:15

My daughter is called Lauren, and I have heard this name used in this bracket, but I love it, and I think when you really love a name, you just don't care, whether there has been an Eastenders, Little Britain, Towie person.

Lauren is a lovely name and quite class-neutral IMO. Agree with you about liking some names regardless. I really liked Aaron and Ethan when I was expecting DS but was shouted down by DH (and everyone else) as they are apparently chavvy :(