If you're called Janet or Sharon and your DH is called Paul or John...

[ampere]

... do you think people think you're a wannabe upwardly mobile pretentious twat if you call you children Cosmo and Jocasta? Especially if you hyphenate your surnames?

Seriously, what would you think if Sally Johnson (say) and Mark Allen introduced their firstborn, Persephone Johnson-Allen?

Am having a rethink!

I know of a Gemma & Darren otherwise Gems and Daz with startling childrens names.

Cosmo or Jocasta, would not think complimentary thoughts as they are not my favourite names.

However, I love Persephone and have done since my friend thought of it for her dd2, alas she chickened out.

Probably would just think they felt having lived with a simple or more usual name they preferred that their children not be forever known as Molly X or Ella 25

No I wouldn't think that.

i don't think I've ever considered the parents names to have a baring on the childrens names. I know many pleassnt eople with standard 70's names who'v chosen more unusual, less standard, names for tier children and didn't think this odd.

Tracey/Joanne/Claire may be dull dated names but that doesn't mean they are dull adults.

mmmmmm not sure it'd make me think much.

names ending in 'o' are in fashion now in the way that Janet and Paul were in fashion once. Hyphenating the sur names isn't rare.

Persephone wouldn't be to my taste and it is a far cry from Ruby/Chloe/Jessica (equivalents of Janet and sharon??).

But I wouldn't split my sides laughing or anything.

some names make me raise an eyebrown, I'll admit. First time I encountered a Cassandra for instance (who absolutely did not suit the name, very down to earth parents) but the name would have given me a slight jolt regardless of who the parents were and what they did and how "posh" I perceived them to be.

(I am not having a moan about the name Cassandra but is honest my reaction)

Have genuinely never once heard a dc's name and thought the parents were wannabe posh because of it. Never.

OK, that's alright then!

I put it to some people at work and after they'd picked themselves up off the floor and wiped the tears from thei eyes, one said the only places you saw that was on the pages of Beautiful Homes: Meet Sandra Jones, a busy interior designer (blonde bob, Boden; her husband Tim Clark, a property developer (never pictured) and their 3 children (insert those names), three blonde boys in designer casual wear and in need of a haircut! This workmate also said the word 'perfect' would feature heavily in the article..

I was intruiged that the phenomenon (of bog-standard names of the 70s 'spawning' names like Cosmo, I mean) instantly conjured up that image in my work colleagues' minds!

I think if you're going to call a child Persephone it's incumbent upon the parents to ensure that they are very knowledgeable about the classical meaning of Persephone and teach as much of what they know to their daughter.

You might not care that people may ask you why you chose that name from all others in the classics, however a teacher/professor/ancient Greek whizz are bound to show interest in the distant future. If you're certain you want to use the name Persephone, fine, but it will precede the child. In other words, people will hold more steadfast perceptions about the parents and background of your daughter before they have met her - good or bad.

By the way, I know many well educated Johns and Pauls but if I'm honest, not so many Sharons and Janets. I think you're lumping two classless male names that have been used for centuries with two female names that attract more preconceived opinions.

Remember that tv programme called Ladette to Lady? They took badly behaved girls and tried, Pygmalion style, to mould them into well bred 'laydees.' There were a couple of double barrelled surnames among them. So it is pretty usual for some people to do it now.

If you're interested, their first names were: Sarah x 3, Jemma, Clare, Jessica, Michelle, April, Victoria, Rachael, Laura x 2, Louise, Frances, Clara, Simone, Amber, Kelly, Charlotte, Emily, Zoe, Maria, Bianca, Skye etc.

Not all of them are as stereotyped to background as one would think, are they? With the exception of the Australian ones (Bianca, Skye) some would expect the ladettes' group to have more Brittanys, Ashleighs and Keiras but after the early 90s, times have moved on and there has been much more harking back to grandparents' names.

I wouldn't connect the two.

Different parents, different times.

Choose the name YOU love! Why should it matter what names your parents loved when naming you?

Sorry, but I really don't get the connection...

People who were called Sharon or Janet back then were probably the first Sharons or Janets in their family, and their children are probably the first Persephones, etc. Both Sharon and Persephone would be quite fashionable, each in its own time. I would think this was a family that was inclined to go with the naming zeitgeist rather than assign any particular class significance to the naming pattern.