How is the name game played?
I think we all come to the realization at some point that we don't like a name because of an association from childhood--or even later. It's often a kid in our class, sometimes a relative, sometimes a famous person. Both Lloyd and a Floyd were with me all through grade school, and I'll just say that no baby of mine would ever have either of those names.
The opposite is true as well. To me, Elizabeth is a wonderful name because of Beth in Little Women. It almost became my Rachel's middle name, but I wanted Suzanne instead--because of Suzie Stebbins, my best friend in grades 1-3, before she moved across town.
Some parents want novelty. Mercury. Chastity. Dweezil. I knew a kid named Talon. His parents told me he was named for the zipper brand (if you look at the zipper tab on a pair of Levis, chances are it says Talon). Yeah. Really.
Some parents want to wait until a baby is born before choosing a name, on the basis that the name has to fit the baby's personality. Or something. I hold that names just fit people. They grow into them or something. I didn't meet Cushing Dolbeare until she was in her 70s, and I had never heard of the name Cushing. It was an old family name. Unusual, no? Cushing was one of the most unforgettable people I've ever met, even though I knew her for only a few years. Warm. Decisive. A groundbreaking leader in her field (low-income housing). I always think of Cushing when I think of people matching their name somehow.
Going, going, gone
So, what to name your baby? I've done a little checking and can report that these names have been on a downward slope over the last 100+ years: Helen, Ruth, Mildred, Florence, Gertrude, Bertha, Gladys, Beulah, Edna.
For example:
- Helen was the 2nd most popular name in 1900, but was 404th in 2014.
- Ethel was 8th in 1900, 176th in 1950, and not even in the top 500 in 2014.
But I hold out hope for some of them. Of course, there's just no hope (nor should there be) for Bertha, what with the Big Bertha cannon and all. But can't you picture little Millie and little Gertie? Ruth is a lovely name. And there is no reason in the world that Helen shouldn't make a resurgence. You who are going to have babies can make a difference!
Some names that dipped low at mid-19th century have already surged:
- Grace: Dropped from 17th in 1900 to 183rd in 1950, but in 2014 was the 21st most popular name in all of the United States!
- Lillian: In 1900 she was hot at #10, but dropped to 155th by 1950. In 2015? 25th! Go, Lilly!
- Hazel: Not as strong a showing as the first two, but a name to watch. In 1900, Hazel was the 19th most popular name for baby girls, but she dropped way down to 219th in 1950. She's picking up speed now, though: in 2014 Hazel was the 107th most popular name. I'm personally rooting for her because we have a baby Hazel in the family.
Clearly the most out-of-control come-back names are Emma and Emily.
- Emma was 13th in 1900 and dropped to 154th in 1950. But something happened after the turn of the century. Emma has been in the top 3 names chosen for babies since 2003 and was #1 in 2014.
- Emily had a similar resurgence but actually might be on the way out. She had a 12-year run (1996-2007) as the most popular name for girls, but she dropped to 3rd in 2008, and now she's down to 7th. Sigh. Poor Emily.
My personal opinion is that Emma and Emily have had a good run and should just get over themselves now.
Tell me about it
I'd love to hear from you--how you chose a baby's name, how you got your own name and whether you think it fits. That kind of thing.
