Could you ever name your child after your mother? Pamela, Teresa, Denise, Brenda, Carol, Barbara, Sandra etc?

[another20]

Found these links to most common girls names born in 1940/50s/60s imagine they would be or becoming grand-parents now could you ever name your child after your mother? Seems older names (our grandparents) get used....

www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/decades/names1940s.html
www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/decades/names1940s.html
www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/decades/names1960s.html

It's interesting because my mother's name was Teresa. She passed away when I was a child, and people have often asked me would I name my daughter after her.

I think Teresa is a lovely name and I think it could be used today for girl. However, I've always said though that if I had a daughter, I would want her to be her own person, so I wouldn't use her name to name my daughter.

I'm considering using Teresa as a middle name though if/when I ever have a daughter. Then again I might just stick to the family tradition of using Marie for a middle name.

I love Pamela.

Yes I have named my DD after my mother. The name suits her and it stands out in a good way at school. She always gets complemented on her name.

My DM died when I was a child so it just seemed natural to give DD her name.

I like Teresa or Carol best of those (Teresa has a family connection, but not my mother). My mother's name is more classic but I wouldn't use that either.

I wouldn't, but DD has a "granny name" (Mabel, Edith, Ivy...) so I reckon those sorts of names will come back in fashion too.

Well that's right as Ivy (and Elsie, just another example) has soared massively in popularity in recent years (just outside top 30)

My mum is called Margot, which seems to be quite trendy now! It was very very unusual when she was a child (she is 78) and she didn't meet another until she was in her 50s. I think it is hideous and would never use it!

Both my DDs' names are on the 1940s list!

Teresa is a lovely name.

No hiding behind 2nd names -- would you have the balls to call them any of the folllowing......

Others from the 1940's list that I couldnt do...

Margaret,
Shirley,
Joan,
Janice,
Beverly,
Geraldine,
Norma,
Rita,
Sheila

(I think Margot is stunning - came up on the other thread for beautiful sounding names - but just one click away from Magot in autocorrect...)

I think it takes 100 years for a name to “come round” again... once the original owners have passed on. Florence, Elsie and Edith were all popular in the 1910s, most of that generation are gone now and the names are coming back. By that reckoning, hard as it is to believe, in another 10 or 15 years, the likes of Doris, Joyce, Kathleen, Beryl, Irene, Muriel and Sheila, all popular in the 1920s and 30s will start come come into fashion (as their original owners die off), but we won’t see many in the vein of Janet, Susan, Pamela, Linda, Christine, Carol etc until approaching 2050.

PS OP, your lists are the American ones. Can’t think of many UK born Darlenes!

The first 1940s list linked to is pretty extensive, and lots of those names are used now . My DM was born in 1940 and her name was Jasmine , very unusual for the time , I won't disclose her middle name but that's really out there !

Agree with the above. I think names skip 3 generations. I.e. people don’t tend to call their babies names from their own, their parents’ or their grandparents’ generation, but great grandparents are fine.

E.g. I was born 1969 and my generation was called Joanne, Sharon, Debbie, Karen etc. My mum’s generation were Carol, Christine, Barbara, Janet etc. My grandma’s were Elsie, Norah, Edith, Mabel etc. I wouldn’t use any of these names but would use great grandparents’ generation (Rose, Alice, Louisa - these are all names of my great grandmas).

The generation below me are now naming their children Elsie, Mabel, Norah and Edith so I guess the next generation of baby girls will be Carol, Pamela etc.

That’s my theory anyway.

Yes just spotted that - but they all looked v familiar to UK until the random Rhonda's and Charlene's popped up.

The 100 year theory looks spot on - for girls only tho - boys are given safe historical names in general: see this..
www.capgemini.com/gb-en/2016/09/the-most-popular-uk-baby-names-analysing-100-years-of-data/

.... and yet John, far and away the most popular boys name for centuries, has all but vanished.

The Johns in our family were always known as Jack.

My mum is called Jessie, which is fine, but many of her friends have names I wouldn't use.

Jean
Joan
Pam
Tina
Susan
Christine
Jacqueline

A few I would:

Elizabeth
Jennifer

Margot is lovely and so, I've always thought, is Beverley, but only for a girl.

My name's on the 1940s list. I wasn't born in the 40s, so it was already deeply unfashionable by the time I came along.

I know a 7yo Shirley. I think Rita is very pretty. I quite like Susan and Linda too.

I wouldn't use my mother's name although I increasingly like it as I get older, not because it is dated (although it is) but because there are two ways of spelling it as a boys or a girls name and they seem to be getting muddled up now especially in America and it's all just too confusing! Also I don't like the shortening of it.

From your list though I do like Beverley and Shirley, and Joan isn't bad, just a bit dull.

My 1950-born mother (a Susan) can’t bear all the Ruby / Edith / Violet / Ivy type names. She says they’re names for maiden great-aunts! She really struggled with Ruby when my niece was named it in 1998 (and it sounded incredibly old fashioned to my ears too then).

Maybe her middle name, but not her first! Not to my taste.

My 1940s born Mum is called Nancy. It's only recently when I've heard little girls being called it that I've thought how lovely it is. Quite sad I didn't use it.

My mum was born in the 1920s and was called Josie. We actually considered it for DD2 but went for something else in the end. I still love it.