Names from a different generation

[Tailbetweenlegs]

I met a woman who was late 40s/50 called Emma recently, and also know an Isobel around this age. I also can remember meeting an Amy who would be about 70 now. I was just thinking that this is quite unusual-these names are much more common in my own generation (late 20s) whereas people in their 40s-70s now are more commonly called Sarah, Paula, Karen, Amanda, Sue etc. I think it’s nice to have a name that makes you sound much younger than you are (on paper I’d assume that an Emma,Emily, Amy was much younger than 50). Not that there’s anything wrong with being older of course/having a name that is associated with a generation, but I think it would be nice to use a name that is unusual in an age group so there aren’t tons around yet it’s still a familiar name.
I suppose in the sixties names like Emily, Emma and amy would have been old fashioned granny names (I’m guessing they were popular in the 19th century-Emily bronte, little women, Jane Austen). So what do you think I could call a baby girl now that could end up being a name that is ahead of its time/just beats the “cycle” of names (not sure how long this is). I like the name Lisa and Karen (probably not brave enough to use-but would probably be very unusual now and i think the bad association/meme will disappear soon).

@Dogoodfeelgood

I was thinking this too, I really like the name Rose nn Rosie but worried that this will be dated once DD is an adult. Don’t want to give her the equivalent of a 25 year old now being called Shirley/Sharon etc.

Rose is beautiful and timeless. It suits every age. I don’t think you need worry.

@Blossomtoes thank you! I hope so 😅

The thing is, many names are cyclical. Even classic names. Isobel is a prime example of a cyclical name - an old, very established name that goes in and out of fashion.

Even Royal names are more or less popular, depending on the era. No-one was called George when I was born in the 70s, whereas it’s more popular now. Likewise, Victoria was reasonably popular in the 1970s, but not many babies are being called that now.

Of course - there are always exceptions - it’s not an exact science! But we all know Victoria, for example, is not a popular girls’ name right now.

Other ‘classic’ names which are not particularly popular right now include Michael, Simon, Robert, Richard, Peter, Jane, Anne, Sarah, Mary (Mary is very possibly on the cusp of a return).

The whole point is that names - even classic names - go in and out of fashion. As soon as they become over-used and begin to sound tired, people stop using them, for something that sounds ‘refresher’ to their ears. Which is often why grandparents recoil in horror, as what sounds ‘fresh’ to modern ears, inevitably sounds old-fashioned to older people, who have memories of their peers being called those tired (to them) names.

This is also why some people really don’t want a popular name for their child. It’s the popular names that sound extra dated in 10 or 20 years, and become heavily associated with a particular generation.

I think if you want to be ahead of the curve, you give your DC a name from your own parent’s generation. It will inevitably sound dated right now.

But by the time your child reaches adulthood, that name will probably be part of the cohort coming back into fashion for babies being born then.

It’s a risky little game though, as you don’t know which names are going to be re-viewed favourably, and which ones never really fall back into favour.

The other option is just to go with the lesser-used names that don’t have an association with a particular generation. But it can be hard to land on one you love. Shakespeare is often good for this sort of thing - Miranda, Helena, Juliet, etc. Also names like Ursula, Cecily, Phoebe, Felicity, Briony…

I’d like to see Denise and Marjorie make a comeback. Love those names.

@VroomVrooom I agree. It's names from a few generations ago that sound new and different. I am in my 50s and I know a lot of people called Helen and also Stephen/Steve. In my class at school there were two Mandy's (NOT Amanda), two of Lisa, Julie, Joanne, Samantha and Debbie. There was also Trudy, Alison and Karen. There was a boy called Charlie/Charles who changed it to Ian (of which there were many) because Charlie seemed like such an old man's name. My daughter is 15 and there is a Lisa in her class.

I like Marjorie and Marion

I loved Stacey for DD but DH vetoed.
I also heavily considered Jessica

I know a Claire and Emma who are due to start school in September. It’s funny as I was born in the 80s and my classes were full of Emmas, Claires, Sarahs and Rachels. I know a Barbara in her 20s too.

Will there ever again be a Gaynor?

I'm called Milly and I'm 49. and nope, it's not short for anything. So make of that what you will!

@VroomVrooom now you’ve got me worried about Rose again!

One of my great grandmother's was Emily, born around 1900, and she was named after her grandmother.

It does seem some names cycle while others are left behind.

Pearl jumped onto the ONS list in the last decade or so that I think is coming back through. Betty has as well which surprised me to read about.

Why would that worry you? It's pretty rare for someone to have a totally timeless name. The only people with a 'timeless' name are men called James. Seriously, a name being a little dated is absolutely fine!

If you want a timeless name then I think a lot of biblical names aren’t names that stick to a certain decade.

@Dogoodfeelgood Rose is never going to date!

I personally don’t think Biblical names are immune to fashion.

There aren’t a lot of babies being called Peter, Bartholomew, Andrew, Philip, John, Simon, Rachel, Deborah, etc, these days.

Again. There are, of course, exceptions. But these names are not popular amongst this generation.

I have a cousin called Rose who's (I think) 35 and when she was born her name was seen as quite out of the ordinary. It's a name that dips up and down again. Very up at the moment.

@VroomVrooom

I personally don’t think Biblical names are immune to fashion.

There aren’t a lot of babies being called Peter, Bartholomew, Andrew, Philip, John, Simon, Rachel, Deborah, etc, these days.

Again. There are, of course, exceptions. But these names are not popular amongst this generation.

Plenty called Noah, Jude, Joshua, Jacob, Samuel, Benjamin, Ezra and Thomas though - and they’ve been used pretty consistently for the last 40 odd years. But you’re right about girls’ names.

met a woman who was late 40s/50 called Emma recently

I think you're confused, OP. I'm 47 and there were 4 Emma's in my class of 30 at primary school. Very popular name for my generation.

I was at school in the 60s and girls in my class were:- Angela, Christine, Judy, Debbie, Philippa, Susan (lots), Suzanne, Liz, Margaret, Dorothy, Jill, Yasmin, Lucy, Kate, Jackie, Caroline, Linda, Isabel, Frances, Sara, Sally, Nicky, Diana, Fiona - to name a few! Hope nobody puts 2 and 2 together and works out who I am!

Dorothy was a bit out there in the 60s, her parents made a brave choice!

Emma was very old fashioned sounding and then it flipped.

I don't think biblical names or saint names are immune to fashion, but those that have stood the test of time and been popular in the 20th century still I think will come back at some point rather than disappear forever

Names of my mum's generation and older from when I was growing up, mostly shortened versions as long names just didn't seem to cut it:

Betty, Chris, Chrissy, Evie, Evelyn, Doreen, Dot, Ivy, Jan, Jean, Joan, Kate, Lil, Lily, Madge, Marie, Mary, Maureen, May, Minnie, Nan, Nancy, Phil, Queenie (nickname surely?) Rae, Sarah, Sal, Vi.

@EishetChayil

Will there ever again be a Gaynor?

This made me smile. I thought it was a lovely name when I was 6.