Since when did imaginativeness and....

[seeker]

.....uniqueness become essential criteria in choosing a baby's name? Last 20 years? And why?

I think it is because society is less cohesive in general and therefore social norms and conventions have become far less important.

I don't think that's true. The Victorians were bonkers creative, as were the Puritans... These things come in generational waves, a bit like fashion. 1920s-30s = boyish lines, their daughters wanted softer, feminine lines (40s-50s), then 60's-70s was back to boyish haircuts and square shapes... I think it's about not wanting to be your mother. Hence granny names are cool but the ones from the mother's generation are less so.

surely people always used imagination to find baby names, that's how names evolve and why we have more names now than ever!

I was about to agree but then read Janoschi's post and have to agree with her. There have always been some ludicrous names out there! But I think the point about not wanting to be like your parents has a lot to do with it (and at that point I always think of the line in Gone With the Wind where someone tells Scarlett that her children will be ashamed of her, but her grandchildren will admire her). Also names from our generation seem so common that we probably discount them a lot - for example, I come from a generation where the boys all seem to be called Michael, David, Andy etc so they aren't names I'd really consider for my DS.

We've ended up giving DD a name that is actually relatively unique, though it actually sounds quite old-fashioned. We chose it because we thought it was pretty in full, and is the kind of name that can be shortened in various ways so that DD can decide when she is older what she would like to be called, but actually its common shortened version is a really 'normal' and quite common name. I did worry a little that it would be too 'imaginative' as I have spent the last few years commenting on the outrageously unique names by DB and DSiL have given their children. I can count the number of people I have told those names too who haven't winced slightly...

Generally speaking, the Victorians used traditional names- the weren't that many Parthenopes! And the Puritan names all followed a pattern- they weren't imaginative or unique, they were a form of worship,

OP, imaginativeness and uniqueness have and should always be criteria in naming a person (or a thing) because the purpose of naming someone or something is to IDENTIFY it/him/her.

Every single name was once 'invented' - names evolve and the more names there are the more variety we have in people's names. That not only makes life more interesting but also easier (I know quite a few Steve Smiths for example which can be confusing...).

I think it's just copying the slebs; with the rise in "ordinary" people becoming slebs, the other ordinary people follow suit with the name thing (Beckhams for example).

I agree with babybladder - people have always used their imagination to find baby names and every name was once 'new'.

How dull if we all used the same few names - if anything too many of us use the same names for their children (there are 4 Harrys in our class!), so surely trying to use your imagination to choose a less widely (i.e. more unique) name must be a good thing!

I don't think it has anything to do with the slebs because very few people actually copy their 'silly' names (e.g. Peaches, Princess Tiamii, Apples etc). They're not imaginative or unique, they are just silly imo.

"OP, imaginativeness and uniqueness have and should always be criteria in naming a person (or a thing) because the purpose of naming someone or something is to IDENTIFY it/him/her. "

But that's not how it works- and certainly not how it has worked. Names have been traditionally intended to identify someone as part of a group, or a nation or a religion, or even a class, or to honour an elder. Certainly not a a unique identifier. That is, I think is a really new development.

"Names have been traditionally intended to identify someone as part of a group, or a nation or a religion, or even a class"

Perhaps people are becoming more open-minded about considering names that might be outside of their 'group/nation/religion/class'.

Also, there is a lot more group combining than previously -- combing two families is hard enough, then you have multiple nationalities plus a religion plus job issues for some, and so on.

But also, I don't think is really has become essential or any more than previously. I think the most that most people want is for their child's name not to one of many if a class and would prefer not to be viewed as really imaginative or unique. Often on here we have people wanting something "different but not out-there" as 'imaginative' is mostly a non-compliment when it comes to names.

If the purpose of a name is simply to identify someone then we may as well all just have numbers instead :o

But numbers don't roll off the tongue as easily .

I think that there is a difference between wanting to chose an unusual name and wanting a unique name and making something up or repurposing a word in order to do so. I wonder whether part of the diversity is due to the internet. My parents chose all our names from the Oxford English book of Christian names. We all got relatively unusual names (especially my middle sisters middle name and my first name). But they were all names with some history/heritage, and you can trace them back fairly easily, they have some meaning and previous usage. When people ask where my name comes from I can give them a good answer.

Now you have a lot of naming resources, many of which give totally bogus authenticity to names (I've been to several sites and typed in totally random collections of letters to be told that these characters are in fact a real name) so people go around saying that they like x name, and no they haven't made it up. Plus people borrow from different cultures much more freely in a way that they probably wouldn't have done in the past.

So I think that's a part of it. But certainly names have been 'interesting' in the past too, either with fairly random spellings because spelling hadn't been formalised, or just with names that have totally dissappeared, and so look very odd to us now.

or could it be because more people seem to have the bizarre belief that if you call your baby Basingstoke or Asafoetida other people will think "oh, what interesting, unique free thinking people those parents are- I wish they were my friends!" and equally bizarrely, if they name the baby James or Charlotte others will think "How very boring and dull those parents must be, I don't want to meet them!"

It's all about the parents. As evidenced by the frequent "Am I brave enough to....." it's not you who has to be brave, sunshine!

I do think though that the majority of the population still picks traditional names. They did in the Victorian times and they do now, hence all those little Williams, Harrys and Olivias toddling around. It's the weird ones that stand out though, so attention is drawn to them.

But you hear more unusual names now because of the internet, the fact people travel more etc etc. It doesn't follow that more babies are called these names, just that you hear of them. Mumsnet is a prime example. If you were naming your baby 50 years ago, you'd probably be influenced by the names of favourite characters in films and books, plus friends and family in your area. On Mumsnet there are so many backgrounds and influences that you hear an unrealistically varied range of names and some are bound to sound odd to other ears.

But what makes a name traditional anyway? Florence is now viewed as a classic name but when Florence Nightingale was christened, it was akin to the Beckhams calling their kid Brooklyn or the Hiltons calling theirs Paris.

And I'm not sure the Puritans were that normal. Faith, Hope and Charity are now old and established but back then they were very much of that era. A lot of the others didn't quite make it through - Increase and Repent-Ye never really caught on!

I have a typical 70's/80's name. I was one of three in my class at primary school and on my MSc, I have always been identified as firstname Inital-of-surname and I hated it, therefore when choosing a name for dd I deliberately wanted one that was fairly unique to avoid this issue. Ironically I picked a name that is rising in popularity, I managed to avoid the top 20 girls names but not by much!

Didn't people used to name their children after a rich aunt or cousin, hoping the money would be willed to them for the honour?

Perhaps people are becoming more open-minded about considering names that might be outside of their 'group/nation/religion/class'.

Still can't imagine a La'Tyrel at Eton though (made that up, i do not know anyone with that name if you do I appologise)

"Still can't imagine a La'Tyrel at Eton though (made that up, i do not know anyone with that name if you do I appologise)"

Nor can I, but not because of his name but rather because it is very likely that his parents don't support learning as much parents of a William might. Nothing to do with the NAME per se, rather with the parents (who happen to have different tastes).

we chose names at the lower end of the 50-100 listing as we didn't want our children to be called big/lttle x or x + surname. Names are a way of identifying who you are talking about and we wanted it to be easy for our children to be identified.

Names are always evolving, that's how new names appear. As Janoschi said, when the Nightingales named their daughters Partnenope and Florence, these names had never been used as names before!

I too have a very common name and didn't like always having to add an initial or other adjective (often little x) to my name, it makes it harder to identify someone if they share a name with many others. We're therefore looking for less popular names for our own children.

I actually like imaginative names because I have a mega dull name and have been confused for other people all my life. I also get bored hearing the same baby names announced all the time, even if they are lovely names.

However, David Mitchell agrees with you:

There's an interesting chapter in Freakonomics about 'African American' names (De-Andre and Shaneesha and La-Troy type names). It is a signifier of background which pays dividends by creating community links which can help a child / adult throughout their life and that community support outweighs the opprobrium heaped on those names by those outside the community.

Steven Pinker also does a good analysis of how his name (Steven) became so ubiquitous in the 60s / 70s.