The Baby Name Wizard

Also, I do think Megan Allison sounds very 80s. I had many (MANY) friends named both Megan and Allison who were born in the 80s. I didn't realize that Samara was an Indian name, but I've known several women (also born in the 80s) with the name, and I always thought it was a fairly standard, though not common, alternative to Samantha. Sylar looks like Skylar without the k -- perhaps that's what's going on there?

Chel - Mary definitely registers as dated to me, but in a very different way than Linda does. I think it will always be classic, as long as Christianity is around, but it has had a major decrease in popularity. More contemporary options would be Marie or Maria, or maybe Rosemary with Mary as a nn., although that still sounds dated. I think Mara and Mariel are beautiful, but perhaps straying too far from what you're going for. Anyway, yes, Mary sounds a bit dated, but still completely classic. I think perhaps the Christian association is what has made it fall out of style while Elizabeth and Katherine remain popular. Mary conjures up a much more Puritanical image, which is not in fashion these days.

Just to clarify, I know biblical names are completely in fashion, and Christian names that aren't biblical as well, but I don't think any of the popular ones carry the same Puritanical vibe as Mary does.

Chel, I like Mary, and think of it as much more timeless than Linda. It does sound religious, of course, but not bludgeoningly so. I think of Mary Ingalls, Laura's sister--sweet and pleasant. I don't know many Marys today--I knew one who was born around 1980, can't think of any others. I've known Mary Kates and Mary Lous, but not many just "Mary"s.

Well, what is a discussion without opposing viewpoints? :) I personally do not fine Mary dated. It could be because I am also Catholic and know many Marys ranging from infants to grandmothers. In fact, in 2006 Mary ranked 84 according to the SSA. Perhaps the "dated" perception comes from the name's drop in popularity from the number one slot in 1962. Up until that year Mary is listed as the number one name all the way back to the 1880s. So it is true that there are far fewer Marys now than there were 50 years ago but with a ranking in the top 100 I don't think that the name can be classified as unpopular.

Christiana- I love Paige! I've only met one person with that name ever (she'd be about 15 now), so anecdotally it doesn't seem too trendy (or prep-school or anything else) to me. Cameron's not my favorite, but I like all of your other mn choices. (I'm not sure if you're set on those pairs, or just those mn's as the only mn choices.) Good luck, and let us know the gender!

Chel- I've posted before that my sisters and I all four have 1950's names (Linda being one of them), even though we were born 1979-1987. I actually like the fact that my name is fairly uncommon among my generation. Mary becoming less popular might not be a bad thing, in my opinion. If you love Mary, I'd say go for it. Good luck, whatever you choose.

Christiana, I too am a fan of the spelling Catherine, nn Cate. Paige evokes the tomboy feel to me too. A good friend through school was named Meghan, so that's the spelling that looks most natural to me. It wasn't till later I realized most people use "Megan."

Keep us posted on whether it's a boy or a girl! :)

Christiana: Love the name Paige, it would be on my baby name list if it wasn't my niece's name.

My husband is stuck on the name Jenny. I can't get him to consider anything else. We find out what we are having in 2 weeks we are very excited. Hoping once we found out the sex especially if its a girl that he will consider some other names as well.

I think that the reasons for the 100 year cycle in naming trends are complex but boil down to two things:
1) It takes a while for the rough edges and bad memories of the deceased to fade. Great Grandma Ruth might have been crotchety and suffered from horrible bouts of depression, but by the time several generations have passed, all of that is largely forgotten. We think that naming a little girl after her great grandmother will tie her to tradition and the strength of the family, without worrying about the individual associations of the original name bearer.
2) As any student of history will know, every generation thinks that its own time is the most difficult, the most fraught with tension, the most depraved. The past seems simpler, kinder, easier. Who wouldn't want to tap into that?! Choosing a child's name from a bygone era evokes powerful associations of the past, usually sanitized. We don't think, "Pre-antibiotics, Jim Crow, no votes for women" but "Ah, the gentility, the dignity and wisdom of the past."

Mary-- A deeply historic name that yet stands outside of time. A darling, distinctive name for baby, toddler, child, woman. Time-tested nicknames-- Molly, Moll, Mally, Polly. Chel, since you are favorably disposed to this name, I don't think you can go wrong with it. A beauty.

To add to Elizabeth T's explanation, 100 years is also about enough time to ensure that most of the people of the earlier generation that carried the name are no longer around. That sounds pretty awful... but what I mean is that most of the Lindas and Barbaras and Debras who were born in the 50s are still alive and will hopefully be alive as the children of today grow up. So those names will always be the names of that generation to the children of this generation. Meanwhile, most of the Hazels, Mabels, and Esthers who were born 100 years ago are no longer around, so those names are no longer tied to living people. That makes them easier to redefine.

I didn't know Molly was a nn. for Mary! Polly too? Really? How did these develop? And while we're on the subject, is Molly to Polly as Meg(gy) is to Peg(gy)?

Chel - if you are worried about Mary sounding dated, how about Mary Kate or Mary Jane? Old fashioned and classic, but somehow fresh. (Though I'm not Catholic, so I don't know the religious implications of these names.) There was also an earlier post about a little girl called Mary Bass, which seemed perfectly adorable to me...perhaps you could couple Mary with a short, unexpected surname, maybe even a boyish one. Mary Clark Lastname? Mary Ryan? Mary Dean? I know someone will have a better idea than these admittedly lame examples.

And on the Catherine/Cathryn debate, I'm not convinced that Catherine is the same name as Cathryn. Cathryn sounds very 40's-era to me, sharp and crisp, while Catherine has a gentle, more ladylike feel to it. Joan, Jean, and Jane are virtually the same name, but with very different feels to them.

I agree that Samara is a pretty name, but the only logical conclusion I can draw from the confluence of these two names in one family, is that these parents deliberately chose to identify their children with evil fictional characters. And it doesn't sound like they are alone...

I looked up the name Samara on Name Voyager and it went from never charted to the top 400-300 between 2003-2006.

The Ring was released in 2002.

Heroes premiered out last year, so I think I'll be entering Sylar in Laura's next Baby Name Poll...

Mary was one of the three names I had picked out for my daughter - it's a family name, but it's also timeless, not too common, pretty, and easy to spell and say. The only reason we didn't end up using it is because when DD was born she looked so "exotic" to my husband, he wanted a more "exotic" name - hence Louka.

Eo: I have a friend that is Meghann.

chel: Mary is perfectly darling. I wish I could have one. o well... :)

Hyz - your description "a little girl/woman with dark hair and light complexion, and maybe a serious, thoughtful personality" immediately conjured up the name Violet. I like Violet, but I do believe it's becoming rather popular.

Christiana - My vote would go to Megan Allison. Megan seems to have become timeless in the last few decades, and it is a bit Celtic but not too much. All the Megans I know, of whatever spelling, pronounce it MEE-gan, nn Megs.
All the Al[l]isons I know (not many) are around my age, 45. But it's a lovely name, more musical than the currently popular Alice, which sounds rather sharp, like an old English nanny, to my ears. And Megan Allison runs beautifully off the tongue.

Samara - you could also look at it as a geography name. Samara is the 6th largest city in Russia. I personally think it is way more attractive than, say, an otherwise very similar name like Tamara.

Samara was also the name of a model of a Russian-made car Lada (but in the US that hardly matters - but anyway, Samara was the more successful line of Ladas).

There has been a lot of talk of dated names, but very little talk about how Asian-originated (first and second gen) families and their naming trends often seem to be on a style timeline of their own, some sporting more unusual names (in the style of Elbert, Esther etc.) Do you see this changing?

Chel - I love the suggestions of following up Mary with Kate (or Katherine), Jane, or some other complementary name. Other possibilities: Mary Elizabeth, Mary Eliza, Mary Amelia, Mary Lucia, Mary Kay, Mary Alice, Mary Agnes, Mary Angela, Mary Louise, Mary Dove, Mary Margaret, Mary Simone, Mary Allison, Mary Andrea,... I actually really like the suggestion of Mary Dean! Two of my favorite writers have those names as first names (Mary Ruefle and Dean Young), and they happen to be close friends, so it's fun for me to picture those names together on one person.

Letter K, that's a great conversation to start. I'd love to hear more anecdotal info about how first and second gen. Asian American families choose some of those dated names (or perhaps not dated, but on a diff. timeline altogether, as you suggest). Here's a sampling of second gen. Asian Americans I know who were born in 1985ish: Eugene, Eunice, Pauline, Gloria, Erlene, Esther, Trudy, Sandra, Paul, Fabian, Suzie, Gary, Alice, Melody, Jean, Doreen, Bonnie.

I know some of those names were chosen because they sounded similar to the given names in other languages, but it seems to be a large enough trend overall that there must be something else going on with these name choices!

Oh, and I forgot about Angus! That one stood out the most to me.

Samara is a botanical name also - it is a winged fruit or seed such as that of elm or ash trees. With all the emphasis on the environment these days, is it possible that the use of plant names might increase? Quite a few flower names have been mentioned but I noticed that everyone skirted around Heather and Erica which spiked in the 70/80s and then faded away!

I am hugely in favor of the name Mary! Everyone should use it! ;)
It has history, is easy to spell, why the benefits go on and on.

Using a middle name or a double first name could be pretty. I've heard of Mary Beth and Mary Jo and if you wanted something a little more formal for the whole name Mary Elizabeth or Mary Josephine would work.
Mary Jane however is slang for marijuana (actually the English translation) and that might not be such a good idea. Kids can be teased for all sorts of things but making it too easy seems mean.

Christiana, I like Catherine/Cathryn and Paige best as just names but I personally would use Alexa as the middle name regardless. My mom has a name that is now trendy and popular and it is not my favorite sounding name. But it is very beautiful to me because it is my mom's name and if I ever have a girl I'm using it at least for a middle name. Paige Alexa and Catherine Alexa are both pretty. Good luck.

Chel: Mary sounds fresh to my ears - I think I've mentioned once before that I know teenage sisters called Anne and Mary and I always think that their names really stand out amongst the sea of Hannah's and Sophie's (not that there is anything wrong with those names...)

HYZ: It surprises me that people think Oliver has a clunky old fashioned feel to it - don't get me wrong its a lovely name - but it's been in the UK top 10 for at least the last 6 years and is currently ranked no. 4 alongside names like Joshua, Samuel, Daniel, Benjamin, Joseph, Jake and Luke (just to give you a flavour...)

Christiana: I also can't really get behind the 'ryn' ending and much prefer the more traditional 'rine' ending of Catherine (but this is of course influenced by my irriation at people misspelling my own name that way!) Good luck with it all! :-)

Eo: there was actually a post or two a few months back about Megan and its reinterpretation as an 'Irish' name, which spawned the spellings Meghan, Meaghan and so on. The gist of it was that American families of Irish descent tended to choose the name much more than other families, and change the spelling and pronunciation to make it look more 'Irish'. Of course, as has been said, it is actually a very Welsh name and in Britain you will never encounter the alternate spellings, any pronunciation other than "MEG-an" or the idea that there is something Irish about it.

Christiana - congratulations!! Of your list, I like Megan and Cathryn the best, and like Lara too. I prefer the spelling Alison to Allison, and Katherine to Cathryn, but that's just me.

Christiana-Apparently Amy A and I are the only ones who like Cathryn. I really enjoy that spelling and to my eyes Catherine is yucky. No offense meant to anyone out there.....My favorite 3 yo is Makayla Catherine and I hate it but I love her....so what do you do :)

Liz&Louka--I do like the name Violet, too, and I get the image you're saying.

Katharine--I think Oliver here is more Oliver Twist or Oliver Wendell Holmes--it hasn't cracked the top list like Olivia, but I'm afraid it might be heading that way.

Letter K--I think a lot of first generation Asian Americans get named because of the similar sound, like you say (e.g. I knew Japanese Erica & Jessica sisters, ending similar to Reiko, Noriko, etc.). Also virtue and noun names are popular, since many Asian names have very intentional meanings like that (so Grace, Pearl, Iris, Zinnia, etc. are common). Christianity is very strong there, too, so I've known many Christys, Esthers, Isaacs, etc. Finally, some of the oddball names come from famous Americans the parents heard of (or maybe acquaintances of theirs) and assumed had common American names (e.g. Elvis). I can't quite explain all the Edwins and Eunices, though--I've seen that too....

Wow, Amy A, thanks so much for the fascinating background. That's what I love about this blog. I should have known about the Welsh origin of Megan, esp. given that one of my grandfathers was a coal miner from the Cardiff/Barry area before emigrating to the New World!!

Yup, Cassie, Molly and Polly are very old nicknames for Mary. I think several names with "R's" evolved into nicknames with "L"s (easier to pronounce, for some) and the vowels were very fluid, Mary became Mally, then Molly and rhyming Polly. Your comparison with Margaret/Meg/Peg is apt. Henry became Harry and Hal. Oh, and Martha became Matty and then Patty, but that died out and Patty was used almost exclusively for Patricia and even Patience.

Mary is so versatile with its illustrious history and nicknames. Even though adorable "Maisie" is a nickname that has been associated with Margaret, it has also been used for Mary, and so has "May" been a nineteenth century nickname for Mary, in addition to its association with the month...

Ditto to what you say about "Oliver", Hyz. I've loved it forever, and am afraid it will take off here like it has in Britain. Wish it would remain slightly stuffy and more obscure, a la my other fave "Barnaby", which parents here in the States have failed to pick up much on. But that's just me...

A further word on the Cathryn/Catherine discussion. There is a certain disdain among elites for what they consider "fancy" (read "pretentious" or "creative") spellings. That always seems a bit beside the point to me.

To those steeped in medieval and even Elizabethan names, spellings like "Cathryn" are hundreds of years old, and although rarer than the conventional spelling, are just as "sanctified" by time, if you will. Medieval spellings like "Sysley", "Olyffe", "Kynborough", have a quirky charm, very unlike today's "Adynne", "Breeanna" or "Pskyler". Which I concede do sound needlessly fanciful...

I think some name authorities do a disservice when they don't make distinctions like the above...

Continued, Medieval names:

Golly, sorry to go on like this! But I love names from the Middle Ages like "Margery", "Alianore" and "Alys". There's even a royal "Alys" who played an important historical role hundreds of years ago. Her contemporaries would be baffled were her name to be labeled a "kreative" spelling...

Ok, ok, this is the last one!

Anticipating that some will say that the medieval variants and the modern "creative" spellings seem the same, the distinction is this:

Kreative spellers of today take more established names and re-arrange them arbitrarily. The medieval variants took form in many cases AT THE SAME TIME as conventional spellings, when spelling was still fluid, and just gradually lost out on the popularity contest over time. But, one could argue, they were just as valid, given their early origins...

On the Catherine debate: I've always loved C names, so I prefer to use them most times (I know we've had this discussion on previous conversations), but I love the look of Kathryn best. My great-grandmother and my childhood best friend were both Catherines, so that is my second favorite option, and my favorite in the "classic" sense. I do like Katherine after reading a biography of Katherine of Aragon (though since then I've seen it spelled both w/ a C and a K). I just liked the look (a little shorter) of Cathryn Alexa vs. Catherine Alexa (the later looks too long for me).

I wonder about how text messaging and instant messaging is going to change and influence standard spelling in English. This is bound to have an impact on names as today's IM generation begins to have children.

Uh, the "quirky charm" of what you are calling "medieval spellings" comes about because spelling was not "set" until much later. The same person who is Sysley in one record will be Sisley, Cycalye, Cycly, or Sycily in another. And I really don't see how Cycalye or Cycly look any less "weird" than a lot of the creative spellings modern parents come up with. (And I did not make those up for effect; they are all mentioned in the article on Cecilia in Withycombe's _Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names_).

It seems a bit silly to me to think that a particular spelling is "legitimate" if one can find an example of it in some medieval record, but to complain about similar spellings if one can't. I don't think obscure medieval clerks should be the arbiters of what's "acceptable" in 2007. Saying that something is more "valid" just because you can find an "old" example of it just seems arbitrary, pedantic, and snobbish to me. Of course, YMMV.

Eo, I agree with all you're saying about medieval and other earlier spellings, and Cathryn is certainly an earlier recognized spelling, not kreativ at all. The fear, I think, is that it will (unfairly) get lumped with the kreativ names, and the kid will have to go through life saying, "That's Cathryn with a y, no e--C-A-T..." because now there IS a usual spelling people default to. I actually think Cathryn is perfectly lovely, if not for that issue. It's similar to why we gave up on the name Averil, which is a very, very old English name that I have liked forever, but now sounds so much like the newly prominent French Avril (which is not new either, obviously, but with Avril Levigne being having put her stamp on it...). I actually would still consider Averil, but DH was against it for that reason.

Eo, thanks for that nice explanation. To reiterate what I was saying above, it's not that I think Cathryn is to Catherine as Adynne is to Aidan. I know that Cathryn is an established Medieval variant. What I was saying is that to most of the people who see baby Cathryn's name in 2007, it will look like a creative spelling, because most people are not name nuts like we are, and the distinction will likely be lost on most. I just think that it's not the best spelling to use IF (and only if) you would be upset by being lumped in with Adynne. You can explain that's it's Medieval all you want, but in the end, the child will be born in 2007/2008, and people will receive the name accordingly. If you want people to understand the distinction between a Medieval spelling and a creative spelling, you'll probably have to explain it to them. And in the end, when people are reading the name on a school list or in a professional context, they'll jump to whatever conclusions they want to jump to.

I'm glad so many people like Mary! That makes me happy and gives us the confidence to use it! My husband likes Mary Theresa, but I really like Mary Claire. Elizabeth and Catherine are out because they are distinct possibilities for first names we might use in the future.

For a boy, we both have our hearts set on the name Peter. But we are having a terrible time finding a name that we like that we feel like flows with Peter. To us, everything we have thrown out would sound better if it were flipped around and Peter were the middle name. For instance, Andrew Peter sounds better to us than Peter Andrew. Peter Stephen doesn't sound good to us nor does Christopher. James and John are out because they could be future first names as well.

Our style is New Testament OR saints names. We try to avoid Old Testament names(and the name Paul) because they are distinctively Protestant to us and we really want to name our kids in our own tradition. Anybody know any cool saints names that go with Peter?

p.s. I think that trying to explain that Cathryn is "Medieval, not creative" would look like you're making an excuse for the name. I think it's important to decide if you're okay with the assumption that the name is creative. If you are, you can just leave it at that... if you're not, why not spare yourself the discomfort of trying to explain the distinction between a Medieval name and a creative name, and spare your daughter the discomfort? Anyway, Cleveland Kent Evans does make a good argument against Medieval spellings as "another standard"... when you put Cathryn it in the context of Cycalye and Cycly, does it really look "standard" anymore in anyone's eye? Not that there's anything wrong with not choosing the standard, but choosing a "Medieval standard" is not the same as choosing a contemporary standard. Also, while Cathryn looks more normal to me because I've seen it before, Alys would look completely ridiculous to me if I saw it in a birth announcement, even though I know it's Medieval. That's just me.

Thanks again, Cleveland. Great info as always.

IMVVHO, most people don't care about the kre8tive spellings. So many people are using them, how could they have a problem with it? As little Cathryn goes through her day, her name is going to be one of the least unusually spelled names. I cannot seriously entertain the idea that a mother will have to explain to anyone that her daughter's name is Medieval. If they want to assume it's kre8tive, let them. Nothing about Cathryn gives off the kinds of derogatory connotations that some make about more modern names.

To my mind, Cathryn is an independent, sporty girl who knows her own mind, while Catherine is a softer, gentler girl. Both names are appealing to me, but not really at all the same.

Of course, the spelling issue is a PIA (as someone put it earlier) but I fear in this day and age Baby Cat may end up spelling Catherine just as much as Cathryn. Maybe more so.

Chel,

I like Peter, too. What about Peter Charles, or Peter Owen, or Peter Luke?

On google, the first list of saints' names I came up with is this--I know there are more, but there are lots of good ones on these lists.
http://wordbytes.org/saints/names.htm

I like Mary Claire much better than Mary Theresa, too, but that's just because I don't care for the name Theresa--it sounds a bit middle-aged and bland to me, personally.

I'm not really up on Saints, so I'm taking these names from a list at this website - http://wordbytes.org/saints/names-boys-ab.htm - which I'm really not sure is reputable. I don't know which would sound most Protestant to most -- Please forgive my ignorance!! But anyway, here are the names that I think would sound good:

Peter Allen/Alan
Peter Ambrose
Peter Clement
Peter Damian
Peter David
Peter Dominic
Peter Edwin
Peter Emmanuel
Peter Francis
Peter Gabriel
Peter Gregory
Peter Lawrence
Peter Louis
Peter Martin
Peter Nicholas
Peter Patrick
Peter Phillip
Peter Samuel
Peter Sebastian
Peter Simon
Peter Theodore
Peter Vincent

Also, not on that list, and a little more out there:
Peter Zenobius
Peter Eligius
Peter Ignatius

EO, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about a time frame of hundreds of years in which all these medieval variations came into and out of use?

You imply that medieval spelling variants are more valid than modern ones because they all came about at roughly the same time. But how about the 20 years in which Madison became Madisyn? In the grand time frame, 20 years is a blink of an eye.

I don't think we can compare what happened 500 years ago with what is going on today. It's like apples and oranges. Most people then were given one of a handful of extremely common names - another reason for all the different spellings and nns, right?

Nowadays there are so many names out there, from so many different sources, even if you pick a common one, you may only meet a handful of similarly named people throughout your life.

I just don't see how a name created by Shakespeare is superior to a modern name. It's a matter of personal preference, and of the good of the child.

kristin dawn and cleveland kent evans: I want to have both your babies. Simultaneously.

I love Mary, and I love the suggestion Mary Dean. That was my grandmother's name! She always went by just Dean, though (imagine my surprise when I found out it was a boy name!)
Hmmm, am I the only one that thinks illicit drug reference with the name Mary Jane? I just don't think it can be gotten away with!
Could the superiority of Shakespearean names be related to the superiority of Shakespeare? Dh and I chose Cordelia as a mn exclusively on the King Lear reference. We saw the play while I was pregnant and were both so moved (in a way that only Shakespeare can move this English lit. major), that Cordelia was the obvious choice for mn. I truly believe Shakespeare will be read, performed, and appreciated for at least as long English is around, so maybe his names have a special place in the English language, that other inventions just won't.
Not to obscure the larger argument that made up way back then and made up today are not too different. Just thinking Shakespeare is an exception.

Oh, Chel, I DO like your choices-- Mary and Peter! I'm one Protestant who has always liked a lot of saint's names, and LKB has a fantastic list. I also like "Peter Giles" (sticking with the medieval theme!)

The medieval names I gravitate to, do, of course, track somewhat with the modern lexicon. You won't find me waxing rapturous over "Popelina", or "Egberta"!! But, names like "Paronell" (for Petronilla), or "Jesperus" (for Jasper) ARE rooted in history, and DO exert a charm for me and a surprising number of other people. It simply isn't as appealing to me to take a very established name in modern times, and alter it drastically. But I can see why many people want to. To each his own!

Personally, I wouldn't feel much need to have to "explain" my choices as being medieval-- it's enough to know it myself, and to communicate the specialness only to those who care. Thanks to those of you who responded so thoughtfully to the discussion-- I thoroughly enjoyed it!

I'm feeling a little sorry for the one of the kids in my class. His name is Connell and he's already had to say several times to me,
"No, it's not Connor, it's Connell".
I'm teaching 300 new kids, as I've said, so don't have all the names down yet, although I'm getting there.I'm just wondering if this poor lad is going to spend his entire life repeating that sentence...

Hyz, when you said you wanted a nature name and described a possible daughter as "a little girl/woman with dark hair and light complexion, and maybe a serious, thoughtful personality," I immediately thought of Linnea from the book "Linnea in Monet's Garden." A lot of kids (especially girls) would be familiar with the pronunciation from this book (and there was a doll, and maybe a DVD), but the name is still moderately uncommon. And so beautiful!

Chel- Another excellent index of saint's names can be found at http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron02.htm

Peter Benedict would probably be the most Catholic combination but there is a good chance that many little boys your son's age will have this same name. I really like Peter Dominic and Peter Sebastian from LKB's list. Three syllable names seem to sound good after Peter.

Mary Clair sounds very nice. Have you thought about using the Clare spelling for St. Clare of Assisi? How about Mary Therese (ter-ez) instead of the three syllable Theresa?

There are so many beautiful names to choose from, as long as you and your husband love the name it will be perfect. :)

Genevieve, I'm not familiar with that book, but it sounds nice--I'll have to look out for it! Thanks. :o)