Why are some nature names regarded insubstantial, and others not?

[persephoneplum]

I have a huge soft spot for the names Willow and Juniper, but I often get the comments that they're insubstantial.

So can anyone put a finger on why Lily and Rose are so well regarded, and the above regarded as wishy washy hippie names?

Also what are your thoughts on Dahlia in terms of substance? This is another favourite of mine.

I think it's just historical & what we are used to hearing. I also think attitudes are changing as more unusual names / words are used and generally people are more open minded than previously.

My 1st name is a flower,that is an 'established' name in britain. When I was younger in France I remember showing my french friends my name in the french / english dictionary & they were shocked as it is neither a name or considered a flower in france, more like a weed.

I have named my daughter River, one of the reasons being I am named after something from nature. We didn't tell many people before she was born as I didn't want to hear people's negative comments that I think they would have felt entitled to give before she was born. So far no negatives to my face, only one slightly didn't know whether to believe me or not. Quite a lot of positive feedback from the least likely of sources, fedback indirectly.

The 'negative' indirect I've had, given the chance,I would've responded with, "No River isn't a boy's name it is a natural geographical feature that I have chosen to call my child".

Another reason we chose River is the sound of the word.

I think if you like the word & its associations, go ahead. Other people's opinions up to them & any out & out negative, nasty, 'name' calling is purely a reflection of their personalities. As seen on the other thread I posted on Baby Names.

I like Willow and Juniper, they don't seem at all insubstantial to me!
Lily and Rose are a bit boring in comparison.