Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know, right? We are all conditioned by our era, and I completely understand that people who are 20+ years younger than me have different images of some of these older names, but when I hear a young mom calling her toddler "Matilda" or "Lucille" or "Oscar," I can't help cringing a little bit. Heck, when I was growing up, one of the archetypal drab, stodgy, unpopular names was "Hannah." I couldn't believe how popular that one became.
Ha. My MIL shares this exact sentiment. She gave her kids "modern" (for the time) names. My given name is a trendy late 70s/early 80s name. It is very much not me. As a longtime lover of "old" movies and history, I've had a deep appreciation for classic or timeless names. At the time my older two were born my exH and I were very religious, so our daughters' names were influenced by our dedication to our then-faith.
My MIL wasn't too excited about our name choices, but oh well. Lol. I certainly didn't care for her suggestions at all.
In any case, my third daughter, Ruby, is named after my great-grandmother. It's also my husband's birth stone and red is our favorite color. Matilda Rose are her middle names. Matilda after the book/movie and I've loved Rose since I was in middle school -- thanks Titanic!
I don't think we're having more babies, but Daisy and Gwendolyn are our top girl names.
Ha. My MIL shares this exact sentiment. She gave her kids "modern" (for the time) names. My given name is a trendy late 70s/early 80s name. It is very much not me. As a longtime lover of "old" movies and history, I've had a deep appreciation for classic or timeless names.
I am not for "modern, trendy" names. Without sharing my own children's names, I can say that they are definitely not trendy. But classic and timeless are not exactly the same thing. Classic names go in and out of fashion just like trendy names. Gertrude, Mildred, Harriet, Bertha are ancient, traditional, classic names, but they are not timeless. I would put Matilda in this category.
Another example--some of the 1960s and 70s names are certainly "classic." Cynthia, Deborah, Barbara, Susan. They have a long and respectable history. But timeless? Not so much, or parents would actually be using them today.
Timeless to me means that the name doesn't give a clue to the age of the bearer. Sarah, Elizabeth, Katherine could be any age. If you're a Matilda, however, you were born either before 1940 (and actually, before 1920 is more likely) or after 2008.
I am not for "modern, trendy" names. Without sharing my own children's names, I can say that they are definitely not trendy. But classic and timeless are not exactly the same thing. Classic names go in and out of fashion just like trendy names. Gertrude, Mildred, Harriet, Bertha are ancient, traditional, classic names, but they are not timeless. I would put Matilda in this category.
Another example--some of the 1960s and 70s names are certainly "classic." Cynthia, Deborah, Barbara, Susan. They have a long and respectable history. But timeless? Not so much, or parents would actually be using them today.
Timeless to me means that the name doesn't give a clue to the age of the bearer. Sarah, Elizabeth, Katherine could be any age. If you're a Matilda, however, you were born either before 1940 (and actually, before 1920 is more likely) or after 2008.
I would put Matilda in the "old fashioned" category, which I like, depending on the name. My first daughter's name, Grace Elizabeth Katherine, is probably the quintessential timeless name. Victorian and Edwardian era names are a definite favorite for me and my husband. And family names.
I know, right? We are all conditioned by our era, and I completely understand that people who are 20+ years younger than me have different images of some of these older names, but when I hear a young mom calling her toddler "Matilda" or "Lucille" or "Oscar," I can't help cringing a little bit. Heck, when I was growing up, one of the archetypal drab, stodgy, unpopular names was "Hannah." I couldn't believe how popular that one became.
My mother's name is Charlotte. She is 88. Charlotte was also the name of her aunt, grandmother, and great-grandmother. She always hated her name because to her it was an old-lady name, and now she can't get over that the Brit royalty and others are giving baby girls such an old-lady name.
Anything that would be commonly mis pronounced or with a different looking spelling. Any ghetto names. Best to stick with classic old fashioned names. Michael, Elizabeth, George, Clara, etc. No one wants to hire someone named Shybonisqha. It's not unique, it's stupid.
Anything that would be commonly mis pronounced or with a different looking spelling. Any ghetto names. Best to stick with classic old fashioned names. Michael, Elizabeth, George, Clara, etc. No one wants to hire someone named Shybonisqha. It's not unique, it's stupid.
I am not for "modern, trendy" names. Without sharing my own children's names, I can say that they are definitely not trendy. But classic and timeless are not exactly the same thing. Classic names go in and out of fashion just like trendy names. Gertrude, Mildred, Harriet, Bertha are ancient, traditional, classic names, but they are not timeless. I would put Matilda in this category.
Another example--some of the 1960s and 70s names are certainly "classic." Cynthia, Deborah, Barbara, Susan. They have a long and respectable history. But timeless? Not so much, or parents would actually be using them today.
Timeless to me means that the name doesn't give a clue to the age of the bearer. Sarah, Elizabeth, Katherine could be any age. If you're a Matilda, however, you were born either before 1940 (and actually, before 1920 is more likely) or after 2008.
These names were popular in the forties and fifties, not so much so in the sixties and seventies. LOTS of Debbies, Barbaras, and Susans, in my age bracket, and I suppose some of those Cindys were really Cynthias. "Linda" was another hit name of that period, as was "Sherry" and its related names.
"Susan" is making a modest come-back, but I don't see the others returning quite yet.
My g-g-g-grandmother was named "Barbara", btw - she was born in the early 1700s, in Northern Ireland, and was Ulster Scots.
I would put Matilda in the "old fashioned" category, which I like, depending on the name. My first daughter's name, Grace Elizabeth Katherine, is probably the quintessential timeless name. Victorian and Edwardian era names are a definite favorite for me and my husband. And family names.
I know no one of my age group (early Boomer) named Grace. I do remember the actress Grace Kelly, and Gracie Allen, wife of George Burns. The "Graces" I know/know of are all children.
These names were popular in the forties and fifties, not so much so in the sixties and seventies.
They were going down in the 1970s, to be sure. But I was born in the late 1960s, and I knew plenty of all of them. Susan was #5 in 1965, Cynthia #9, Deborah #13, and Barbara #25--this is the one that had already declined the most from its peak.
Grace has had ups and downs, all names do, but I think it still deserves to be called timeless. Sure, it was down at #216 in 1955 and #256 in 1965, but that's still respectable. It's not like Matilda, which completely disappeared from the Top 1000 between 1964 and 2008.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
