Can a name be dated to a specific period but also be classic at the same time?

[hcarter8]

Take Olivia for example, its been extremely popular for the past 10 years and there's many babies and young children called it but it's still a very very old Shakespearean name that has been popular since the 13th century but it's just only recently had a resurgence. If I heard the name Olivia I would assume they were a child even though it's a classic name.

Another name that springs to mind is Emily, i don't think it's roots are as old as Olivia but it has been used since the 1800s it dropped out of the top 100 in 1914 and wasn't heard of for a good 60 years until it re appeared in the top 100 in the late 70s and became the popular name in 90s/2000s, even though the name itself has been around for a long time again I would assume most Emily's are in the age range of around 15-30 years old.

But then again there are some names that are truly timeless like Elizabeth, it has always been in the top 100 and could genuinely be a 60 year old or a baby.

This is just something I was thinking about and wondered what other people's thoughts were?

I'm just curious to hear others opinions on this?

Are there any names that you consider classic even though they were more popular at a certain time?

Sarah is a biblical name, but very popular for babies born in the 80/90s. Names such as Sarah, Elizabeth, Victoria, Katherine, are ‘classic’, but were very popular in the 80s. I don’t know of anyone who has called their child Elizabeth (my friend group is 80-90s born). Charlotte and Olivia are names that I grew up with, but know people who have given children those names.

Other popular names from that era such as Laura, Joanna, Lucy, Anna, Helen, Hazel, etc., I also haven’t seen any babies with these names. I think there is more diversity of names now, so even if names are popular, they won’t be as ubiquitous as Sarah or Elizabeth were.

Probably Christian names from saints -

eg, for girls:
Margaret - and its other forms, Margot, Peggy etc

Mary and its variations - Molly, Polly. Etc.

Catherine - Kate, Kitty, Catriona etc

Anne - Anna

I was going to say Sarah too. Of the 70s/80s names, it certainly peaked then (especially as Sarah-Jane) but it’ll never be “dated”.

Yes. The classics remain classic but some of them tend to be very popular at times.

Elizabeth tends to have diminutives that become popular, so Betty will be about 80, Lisa about 60, Lily ... etc

I think even classic names have peaks and troughs so yes - I know Olivias and Emilys in their 50s - they just weren’t so popular then.

Elizabeth, Eleanor and Isabel are definitely classics that are more popular now than when I was little (in the peak Sarah era). I have noticed some classic names popular in my age group (50) are beginning to be used for babies again - Penelope, Anna (and Annabel), Jennifer, Lucy, Alexandra, Sarah. This bucks the idea it takes a hundred years. Emma never really went away. Helen, Clare, Rachel and Rebecca aren’t back yet.

Margaret and Mary are undeniably classics but would have felt very old fashioned until recently (especially Margaret). Jane is still in a trough.

Catherine has been pretty consistent for ages I think.

@Torganerinterestingly I know two children called Elizabeth with parents born in the eighties.

I think Robert and Stuart are these kind of names.

I tend to think of classic names as being ones where you couldn’t guess how old the person is just from their name.

It's more that they never sound 'of their time', or obviously indicating a particular socio-economic background.

Interesting discussion!

For example. I think Anna is a classic name. It's Biblical, it's a common name in many countries, etc. But I must admit that if I heard the name Anna, I would not think that person would be a baby born in 2023.
(But it could be someone my age (36 years old). Or someone born in the 1960's. Or someone born in the 1930's. Or someone born in the 1890's.)

Tiffany!😁

Richard is a classic name that has totally fallen out of fashion since the 90s. You've got it going back to the Normans and before and it's practically disappeared now. I suspect a revival in about 40 years. George did similar, from very popular up until the 1950s then dropped off and a resurgence in the last decade or so. Henry too I thinm

An aunt, who was my father’s eldest sister was a Susan. I liked her and her name very much and 60s and 70s born children were relatively often called Susan. Auntie Sue would have been over 100 now and the name stayed a popular classic until the 80s. Somehow it went the way of Julie, Deborah, Tracey etc

Many Biblical names will never date though they go out of fashion.
Rebecca
Classic names are often base or root names from which other names were made.
Elizabeth and then came -Lisa. Lizzy, Eliza, Beth, Libby etc
Louise - Loubelle, Lois, Louby

Royal names are a good source of very classic names that have been used in various countries in differing forms.
Alexandrina
Alexandra
Alexia
Ellinor
Eloise
Eleanora

For me a name being classic and a name being timeless are two separate things. Timelessness and dating are about how a name has been used recently, regardless of the history of use. Susan and Phoebe are both old names with a long history of use, but if you knew there was a granny and granddaughter called Susan and Phoebe, most would assume that Phoebe was the child and Susan the granny.

To be truly timeless to me, a name either has to have been consistently popularly for generations, or have such low use that an can’t be guessed from it (but without falling into a wider trend happening that dates that name). Girls names seem to have more trends than boys. Only one girls name has been consistently in the top hundred in England and Wales since records began: Elizabeth. For boys Alexander, Charles, Daniel, David, Edward, George, James, Joseph, Michael, Thomas and William have retained their place in the top hundred since 1904.

I always feel sorry for poor Tiffany. It's a really pretty name with a fantastically long history but most people have no idea!

Absolutely I think. I’d consider the following names classic but they aren’t popular now.

Margaret
Mary
Maria
Anne
Catherine
Jane
Sarah

Matthew
Stephen
Peter
Richard
Robert
Mark
John
Christopher
Patrick

@user1492757084 , Lois isn't from Louise. Lois was in the New Testament.

I know a baby Laura, Lucy, Anna and Hazel. I also know people who have used Katherine and Elizabeth in the past couple of years.

Think as PP said the distinction here is between classic and timeless. When people say they want a classic name I often think what they are looking for is timelessness, because the vast majority of names (bar the very modern sounding ones) have some historical usage.

I look for classic + timeless, so my daughter has a very unusual but well-recognised name and my son has a name that has never left the top 100. If it is recognised and used internationally then bonus points for both classic and timelessness.

Slightly off topic but I think the least important aspect of naming is sound. Our subjective understandings of what sounds good massively changes over time. Even association I don’t think matters, as names with beautiful associations, like Dawn, quickly become associated more strongly with a particular demographic.

Is it timeless; is it classic; does it link to my heritage? Surely those have to be the top credentials.

No.

Alice
Alexandra
Elizabeth
Lydia
Lucy
Rosemary
Rebecca
Louisa
Victoria

James
George
Thomas
Christian
Benjamin

@Catifly How nice that you know a baby named Anna! That's my favourite name. I know many women with the name Anna, but non of those are under the age of 25.

Anne. How old do you think most Anne's are? I think it's a very pretty, classic name but you just don't hear it anymore. I think Lisa is nice but again you don't hear it.

There were quite a few Anns at school, but more with Ann(e) as a middle name.
Anna and Hannah replaced the Ann(e)s