I played tennis earlier this week with Graham, Ian and Vincent. I don’t know about you but I don’t know any kids with these names, or mine. We’re all middle aged at best, is there any hope of a name revival. Are we sure we want one?
In New Zealand Peter topped the charts as most popular boys name for four years from 1956 – 1959, admittedly well before I was born! 1958 was young Peter’s best year with 1484 little boys receiving the name. He made his last appearance in the New Zealand top 100 in 2004 with only 55 applications. That year Joshua was top of the table but despite the birth rate being roughly similar to what it was in 1958, there were only 504 of them. This confirming the US statistic that there is a far wider choice of names being used. In America in 1955 63% of boys received names in the top 50, down to 32% by 2015. The drop for girls was even more marked, down from 53% to 22%.
There were six Saint Peters and two Vincents, (no canonized Ians, Grahams or Graemes – not yet anyway). I was named after my Uncle Peter, and my middle name, Philip, was my Dads name and an uncle of his before that. We used grandparents names for the middle names of our kids. So there might be an argument that the resurgence of Peter and Jacqueline (51st in the year my wife was born) might yet be forthcoming.
We have good friends who named their daughters Georgia, Ruth and Elsie. I think they’re great names but the only other ladies I’ve met with the same name as the latter two were friends of my Grandmother who would have been born around 1900. I’m picking though if they’d had boys they wouldn’t have used Graham, Ian or Vincent. Though they did name their dog Colin, which my father in law (same name, born 1928) thinks is marvelous.
Economists have of course tried to look at the link between name and life success. But really that’s an exercise in socio-economic status at birth. For example Eleanor is 100 times more likely than Jade to make it to Oxford University.
Olivia and Oliver were both top of the pops for 2015 in New Zealand and they both only made their first appearances in the top 100 list in 1999. So my bet is that in fifty years time, probably just after they’ve played a couple of sets of middle-aged tennis the Ollies will be lamenting the lack of junior namesakes. Then they’ll check the name charts. Peter and Jacqueline will be right up there.
Thanks Pete for this – I am putting together a chart about my grandson’s name. He is Peter. And I hadn’t found where it had been at its highest – I knew it was in the 1950s, but not that it had actually topped the tables sometimes. You are right and wrong: Elsie is becoming popular again. Not Ruth so much, but I like Ruth, partly because it seems to transcend fashion. But there is no doubt that popular names take about 100 years to come round again. Names like Violet and Ivy have come back again; I don’t know so much about boys’ names. I remember when I was a child and loved the Anne books by LM Montgomery. I found Matthew then a most old-fashioned name, then it was everywhere a bit later. So I had to readjust my thinking.
Thanks for yours Carolyn. I agree with you, a good name is one that does transcend fashion. I also like the idea of a 100 year cycle. Though in this age of celebrity I presume there will also be mini name booms between the cycles. In the states I’m predicting that on one side of the political spectrum there will be a rush of Donald’s. And on the other a rush of Barack’s and Michele’s. Although this is clearly not new, as I said in the blog, my wife is Jacqueline, born in the Kennedy era. By the way my paternal grandmother, born in 1897, was named Ethel Caroline Arden. Ethel must be due a comeback!