About Abby Sandel

Whether you're naming a baby, or just all about names, you've come to the right place! Appellation Mountain is a haven for lovers of obscure gems and enduring classics alike.

You May Also Like:

What do you think?

20 Comments

    1. Yes and no. Laurence was the preferred spelling early days; Laurencia the most formal feminine form. But in common usage, there was quite a bit of crossover in the use of short forms for many names in Medieval England. (Though I can’t find the exact spelling Lauren for either gender.)

      In the 20th century, Lauren was used sparingly for boys until Lauren Bacall came along.

      So … yes, it was male circa 1930, but would have been gender neutral circa 1390. I’d say Lauren sounds like a logical short form for either gender, but I can’t imagine parents picking it out of the blue for a son today. Larkin, on the other hand, could definitely work for a boy.

      1. I seem to remember reading/hearing that the Loren spelling was the preferred masculine form. Is this true? What about Lorena then, is that then related to Loren?

      2. Sarah A. – I went to college with a family from Norwegian roots, I believe. The twin brothers were Leif and Loren.

  1. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Laura, but I went to school with numerous girls with a Laurel name (all of whom went by Lori)… So Laura feels like more of a “mom” name to me.

  2. I can’t believe you haven’t already done Laura, I always thought of this as a classic. It has been around for centuries, after all. I really like Laura, and I only knew one growing up (and she stood out in a crowd of Jessicas, Nicoles, Amandas and Stephanies), so I still think of it as fresh and new. I am also a huge fan of Laura Ingalls Wilder (the books, not so much the show), so I would use this name in honor of her.