I’m fascinated by new baby names – names that have virtually no history of use as English-language given names until now. And I’m equally intrigued by how we perceive them. Anneliese is a fast-rising import that I’ve heard called vintage. (Maybe in Berlin, but in the US? Not so much.) Caliber is a modern noun name, but does it refer to ammunition or high quality?
Celebrities add to the name pool, but so do bloggers and ordinary folk. In the past few months, Blue, Glow, and Boheme have all become possibilities for daughters, at least for the most daring among us. Boys can be named Bear or Fox – which seems wacky and modern, but is actually a centuries-old custom.
While this is often a signal to start lamenting the demise of so-called normal names, the truth is that a trend towards more diversity in given names is not new. The percentage of children receiving a Top 1000 name in the US is lower than in years past. But that just doesn’t simply signal more parents at the fringes. The number of children receiving Top Ten and Top 100 names has steadily declined through the ages, too.
But why is that, exactly? I’ve gathered up a list of my thoughts, and I’ll be sharing it over the next few weeks. First up: three things that we have less of circa 2012.
10. The pressure to Anglicize a name is gone.
In many families, our grandparents or great-grandparents routinely adopted typically American names to help them fit in. Diego and Giacomo answered to Joe or Jack. In many cases, they gave their children names designed to fit in, too. Even if they followed old world naming customs, handing down a parent’s name, they used the accepted English version. (Though there are interesting cases, like Ladusky, where landing on the accepted English version wasn’t so straightforward.)
Today, many parents don’t hesitate to use Diego or Giacomo. You’ll find little girls named Aleksandra or Natasha just because their great-great-grandfather was Russian. Even more tentative connections are possible, with parents who honeymooned in Paris focusing on French names, or those with an interest in anime considering choices like Akira.
The explanations can feel artificial, even whimsical. And yet, for families trying to reclaim heritage where it has been lost, this can be a very serious exercise. Some African American parents have embraced names like Ayanna or Imani, though they have little hope of discovering the actual names on their family tree.
If you’re inclined towards tradition, the possibilities are endless.
9. The pressure to follow naming conventions or family traditions continues to decline.
While you’re welcome to embrace your heritage, there’s no need to do so – and that’s relatively new.
In many places and times, names were determined by custom. Children were named after parents, grandparents, godparents, or the saint commemorated on the day of her birth. It could lead to the handing down of rarities, like a mother’s maiden name.
These practices tended to amplify the most common names – especially for boys, where the combined pressure to Anglicize and carrying on a male relative’s name led to lots of boys called Bill instead of Willem and Vilhelm and Guillermo. The force of naming conventions could be so great that cousins shared the same name, like that great scene in My Big Fat Greek Wedding where everyone is named Nick.
When choice was limited, a certain amount of repetition was inevitable. As that pressure declines, more names inevitably come into use.
8. The need to put a formal name on the birth certificate continues to decline.
We know that certain names have been dominant for centuries, like Elizabeth and John. But we also know that those names have given rise to an astonishing number of possible diminutives and elaborations. Elizabeth might have answered to Betty or Liz in real life; John could be Jack.
Tradition used to hold that the formal name went on the birth – or baptismal – certificate, and then you were welcome to answer to whatever appealed in real life.
Less formal names have been gaining for generations. Betty made it into the Top Ten in the 1920s. Jack has long been bestowed independently, and now he’s catching up to John in the US. In the UK, he’s long since surpassed his buttoned-down brother.
What’s behind the change? We’re less formal in general. I wear the same clothes to work, to church, to the grocery store. I call my boss’ boss by his first name, and I actively dislike being called Mrs. Sandel. In an atmosphere of casual and instant equality, why fuss with Alfred if you only intend to call your kid Alfie?
Actually, I think there are pretty good reasons to consider a formal name, but they’re far less necessary than they might have been a few generations earlier. More names become viable options, as our daughters can be Charlotte or Caroline – or Carlie, Charlie, Callie, or Carrie.
Read installment two and three in the series.
Great post!
I really look forward to reading the rest of this series. I know it’ll be an interesting one. I agree with the three points you’ve mentioned so far. Parents are becoming less traditional and not just in the area of naming their children. As someone who runs on the traditional/conservative side, I can’t honestly say it doesn’t bother me a little. Using an ethnic name to honor your heritage – from the family tree or not – is cool. I really like that idea. Using Lizzie instead Elizabeth or Freddie instead of Frederick on the birth certificate? That’s cool too. Nickname names are definitely not anything new. It’s #9 that gets me. By no means do I think every child MUST be named after a relative. I love family names and they’re very important to me, but I don’t expect everyone to think the same way as me. I think family naming traditions are important – a cool way to connect your baby to previous generations. Count me in as part of the shrinking minority who sees nothing wrong with a little boy being John Albert IV or Michael Brandon Jr. I also don’t mind seeing a little girl named after mom or grandma. A lot of people will point out the inequality of it being accepted for fathers to pass down names to their sons but not mothers to their daughters. Well why can’t that change? There’s no rule that says we can’t have Elizabeth Ann III. One of my big pet peeves is seeing extreme departures from family naming traditions. For example, it irritates me to see parents named William Everett III and Elizabeth with a son named Gunner Zayden. He didn’t have to be William Everett IV. He could have been William Gunner, Gunner Everett, Everett Zayden – something that brings in a new name yet still keeps a tradition intact.
Sorry for the lengthy response. Didn’t mean for it to be that long. Guess I had more to say than I thought.
Oh, I like family naming traditions quite a bit – and I don’t believe I qualify as conservative. FWIW, lots of customs dictate the names of girls as well as boys. The Italian tradition was that the firstborn son was named after the paternal grandfather, the second son after the maternal grandfather … AND the firstborn daughter after the paternal grandmother, second born daughter after the maternal grandmother. That was part of our thinking in naming our daughter after my mother – we definitely saw the choice to go with family names as all-in! We wouldn’t give a family name to a son and not to daughter. (Though I suppose if we’d had a big family we’d have run out of boys’ names pretty quickly … there aren’t many men in either of our families with names that work in English.)
I like the idea of using a traditional family name as a middle name to carrying on the tradition, while using a more unique forward-thinking name as a first name, sort of like Gunnar Everett, even though I’m not a fan of Gunnar.
With my daughter we sort of did this, by passing on the middle name my Mom and I share. But the middle name, Dawn, doesn’t seem traditional, but rather some 60-70’s discovery.
We gave our first girl my mom’s mn as her mn. It’s like a secret surname on the matriline! 😉
My daughter and I have the same middle name 🙂 We are both named after my mom (who was named after her grandma). I liked the idea of giving her a first name that was new to the family with a family middle name (and I love my middle name a lot more than my original first name but because it’s so firmly my MOTHER’s name, I don’t have the option of going by it). I am also glad that my ex talked me out of naming her Stevie. Over the last 10 years she has gone with every single nickname for Stephanie BUT Stevie.
Well I’m a Sara, who since birth has gone by Sally. I’m actually pretty divided on the formal name vs. nickname debate. On the one hand, being the only Sally in a sea of Laurens/Nicoles/Ashleys, etc., was pretty special, and considering that I grew up with A LOT of Sara(h)s I was able to distinguish myself from the pack – no Sara M. for me! But it *does* get tricky when you use a nickname that isn’t exactly obvious, or hasn’t been in vogue since the, uh, 18th or 19th century. I heard a lot of “How did you get THAT from Sara?” I even had a teacher once tell my little 11-year-old self, in front of a class of 30 some kids, that Sally “wasn’t a nickname for Sara.” (!) Now, though, I like having a different name to write on checks, official documents, etc., and that the name I use at the dentist isn’t the same name my mom calls me, you know? It’s like I can go undercover if I want to. (Bwahaha.)
This recent conversation I had with my mother, talking about her mother’s generation, captures the essence of #8.
Me: “So Earl wasn’t his real name?”
Mom: “No, his real name was Robert. He was just called Earl.”
Me: “So what was Dub’s full name?”
Mom: “Curtis.”
Me: “Right. So what was Peach’s real name?”
Mom: “I have no idea.”
Me: “Okay, and Grandma’s name on her birth certificate was Elizabeth?”
Mom: “No, her real name was actually Betty.”
My husband: “Are you two pulling my chain?”
LOL! That’s how it is in my family too! It seems like a common thing with old Southern families (which mine is). Two examples- Johnny Donald, nn Bill and Delbert Lowell, nn Bud. Both born in the 1920s.
Great post, Abby! I completely agree with #10 – I’ve watched the vast majority of my South Asian and Arab American friends (none of whom are immigrants themselves) give their children decidedly non-Anglo names. The baby boy born to the couple on TLC’s All-American Muslim was named Naseem. Yup, no Aglicization there! I personally feel like a good rule of thumb is that the parents should be able to pronounce their own child’s name correctly.
As to the nickname vs. formal name issue, I firmly believe in placing the formal name on the birth certificate. I mean, if it’s something like “we’re going to call her Daisy but put Margaret on the bc” that’s understandable because (imho) Margaret ages better than Daisy and Daisy at 35 might appreciate the option of Margaret to fall back on. Or not. I do see the problems that arise from having so many choices. My husband is a Mike and no one calls him Michael. He is now having to decide whether to go by Mike or Michael professionally. Michael is his legal name and would be less headache, but it really isn’t him. The whole issue is why I find myself drawn to names with no nicknames – Moses, Malcolm, Selma, etc. I’ve liked growing up with a name that doesn’t have an easy nn, there’s no fuss about it.
My FIL is Malcolm (a name a love!)… he is also called Malkee/Malkeez… we would never write that, but it is said… more often than Malcolm….
My name is Jade… Jadee, Jadeling, Spade, and Spadely have all been bestowed upon me over the years… my husband has a no-nn name, but he has had nns over time and derived from that “no-nn” name, nonetheless…
in my experience, just because there is “no nn” doesn’t mean there’s no nn! But the no nn names do generally clear up the whole “do I go by x or y” issue – of course, never, ever swaying… never, ever having any delineation between the ‘professional’ name and the ‘close friends’ name does at times get boring after a few and a half decades (and I like my name just fine, which is good, because there’s no nicknaming my way out of it!). It’s all just swings and roundabouts, I guess. (We went with names with ‘obvious’ nns for our kids.)
That’s true. A common nickname in Arabic for Sarah is Susu and my family sometimes calls me that. But with names like Sarah, Malcolm, Adam, and I’m guessing Jade, you don’t experience random people assuming a nickname for you. You don’t have to say “it’s Pamela, not Pam” or “it’s Jim, not James.” I’m not against nicknames on the whole, but I think I’m biased against them having grown up amongst hordes of Dans, Bens, Zachs, Mikes, and Matts 😉
I am kind of wishy washy when it comes to formal names. I love Percy, but Percival or Perseus seems too formal. So if we are blessed with a boy he will be Percy.
But I would place Elizabeth on the birth certificate before I would place Beth. The same with Catherine to Cate.
It is slightly unusual, but it works for me 🙂
I think a lot of people feel that way. We all draw the line in different places! I go pretty far in the pro-nickname camp – there are very few names that don’t suggest a nickname/formal name combination to me. But there are some, especially for boys – Rufus, Willem, Watson, Walton … I like all of them, without short forms.
I love Rufus! Have you ever read Nick Hornby’s “Slam”? It’s about a teenage dad (Sam) and he has a flash forward (during his girlfriend’s pregnancy) where everyone calls his son “Roof”. He can’t figure out why and he hates it. Sam tells himself that when he gets back to his real life he’ll stop his future self from naming the boy “Roof” because it’s so awful. We then learn that his son’s actual name is Rufus but he goes by Roof 🙂 Interestingly, he’s named Rufus because a Rufus Wainwright song is playing on the radio when he’s born.
On the issue of formal vs nicknames, to be honest I can see both points of view, and I think that some nicknames work really well on their own (does anyone even think of Jamie as a nickname of James still?), others scream nickname out loud: Jo for example.
On the juniors thing, I hate it. It’s one of my biggest pet peeves. Why name your son William IV or Johnny Jr? Why perpetuate the same name just to satisfy daddy’s ego? And I’m mentioning sons and dads, because I never see this occuring with girls.
Also like someone else mentioned, its always the really popular names that get the Junior tag, John, James, David, Robert, Alexander, Charles, Matthew, William, Michael, etc. Do you really want to make your son the 3rd in your family with the same name, not to mention sharing that name with millions of others? Why not give him his own identity, he’s not daddy’s little twin, he’ll be his own person someday. Plus it perpetuates the Big John/Little Johnny stigma as long as the parents are alive…
It’s also a very big part of the reason that names like John, Charles, Michael, Robert, William, Alexander for example, have always remained super popular – because they keep getting used extensively as juniors. Mary is off the top100 for girls and it’s the most classic name available for females, a proof that the same does not happen (at least nowhere near as much) with girls. While I don’t particularly like many of these classics, it would be much better if they went out of usage for a few decades and then returned, like most classic girls names. At least people wouldn’t grow fed up of hearing the same names and nicknames everywhere.
I’m not a huge fan of juniors, but I start to fall in love when the name hits IV or V or more. This is, obviously, insane, but there it is. I knew a Nathaniel XIII. That one always floored me. Nathaniel, you have to assume, wasn’t wildly popular in every one of the eras one of the eight Nathaniels was named, and yet they passed it on anyhow. Kind of love that.
Wow, the thirteenth? That’s like King or Pope territory right there. Is there even a “name” nickname for 13th, like Trey or Quint?
She said there were eight Nathaniels, so I think she meant Nathianiel VIII, not XIII.
I’m on the fence when it comes to “juniors”…I love how they are a part of a linage that goes back (and in some cases, like Nathaniel XIII, WAY back) generations. To me, the “juniors” have a connection with the older generations that I just think is cool. Now, on the other hand, I agree that when it’s a common name like John or William, it really gets boring. My father is a Richard Randolph, Jr. Now, both names do offer a wide variety of NNs and isn’t quite as bad as some other names, but still common enough that my father chose to not pass it on to my brother. On the other hand, my great-grandfather was @usley Burl, and gave that to his firstborn son…now we have an @usley Burl IV. Not many nickname opportunities there, but it is an unusual name and worth passing on, IMO.
I love the story of Nathaniel XIII and would love to look into that history!
You know, I know his full name – which is just unusual enough that I should be able to pull it up – plus enough of his family history to point in the right direction and I can’t confirm it. I’m wondering if it was true … the first Nathaniels would have been born in the 1700s. Which is, of course, possible. Is it bizarre to search out someone you haven’t spoken to in almost a decade and ask about their family history? I might have to invent a reason …
I like this! Can’t wait to read 7 through 1.
As a total aside about the name Bear, some 15 years ago or so I had my most unpleasant job interview with a man called Bear – he was middle-aged at the time – born in the late 40s/early 50s I’d guess. His name struck me at the time as I’d never heard of anyone named Bear then. Unfortunately, now all I think of when I hear the name is something I won’t stain this comment with by typing it out. (And to be clear, I got through to the subsequent final round interview, so it had nothing to do with his opinion of me… I also refused to consider any further association with the company and turned down the final interview based on the idealistic – and probably idiotic – thought that ‘any company that hires that guy and has him interview others and trusts his opinions isn’t one I’d ever want to work for’).
If it weren’t for that, I’d probably think Bear is a great name, especially in the middle. I do like Fox, though and we considered it for our son’s middle name because of a very weird X Files connection – which sounds completely dopey… and it is… but still, I’d have used it if my husband hadn’t been so unsure.
Dopey? Try AWESOME!
My husband vetoed all my dorkier literary name suggestions.
The only other name I was willing to consider for our daughter was something that would possibly lead to Anya – she’s the only non-A name of us four, and we were pretty sure she was our last child. Arthur veto’d it because there was a character called Anya on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and he had a firm no sci-fi/fantasy/vampire references policy.
See, and we considered Alexander nn Xander for that very reason.
Dorks. We’re such dorks!
*first generation German-Americans.
I can understand the view of Anneliese being “vintage”, my mother, now in her 50s, grew up with a few Annelieses, they were first general German-Americans of course.
Coming from a part of Canada that has a very large German-heritage population, Annaliese does indeed sound vintage.
I stand corrected!
The thing that kills me about people naming their kid “the 4th” or whatever, is that it’s rarely an unusual first name. All the ones I know IRL are William, Thomas, Francis, or Richard, with only so much room for individual nicknames.
My cousin’s husband is Cornelius, named for his father and grandfather! However, Cornelius is rather a big name for a kid to carry off. My cousin’s son also has Cornelius in his name, but it’s in the middle spot and he doesn’t go by it. They do intend to give him the option to have his name legally changed to Cornelius (in the first position) when he’s older.
I definitely identify with number 9. My husband is a 3rd and there will be no 4th. 1. I really am not fond of his name, 2. we are not royalty, 3. I feel like a child has a right to their own identity 4. and if we were to choose it, I feel like it gives up my naming rights as I am just using a name that someone chose 90 years ago.
I am all about number 8 as well. I am a one of those people who are not for the formal name on the birth certificate.. what is the point if they are never ever going to use that name, just leads to confusion on formal documents and records. I am a “name them what you are going to call them” type. Naming a child then using their middle name is another pet peeve of mine.. why the heck didn’t you just name them that since you obviously prefer it. I will never understand it.. but I accept it. So I guess it is people like me who are changing the tide.. I wouldn’t even think twice about just putting Gus on a birth certificate. As another side note, I do prefer names that are nickname proof for this reason.. name them what you are going to call them.
This should be a fun series!!
But that’s just it — how do you *know* they’re never going to use it? Both my husband and my mother no longer go by the cutesy nicknames their families gave them as children, and thank goodness — it would have been a great detriment to them in their professional lives. My daughter’s name was chosen in part because of the great store of nicknames it possesses, and we actually never use any of them. They weren’t right on her.
Nicole-I disagree with you on using middle names instead of the first. Oftentimes, it’s just how it worked out once the baby was born. Also, it depends on the names the parents want to use and how they flow together. Many of my family members go by their middle names and I think it’s quite cool and will be passing that tradition on to my children if their middle names better suits them.
It really is the flow of the name. My uncle is Cecil Ott, but goes by Ott. Ott Cecil really doesn’t have the same flow as Cecil Ott. My grandmother is Lily Frances but goes by Frances. Frances Lily, IMO does not have the same flow either. All of my relatives who went by their middle names, if you switched it around, it would seem awkward.
I’m with Diana, I like full names with the possibility of nicknames. But then again, even putting down a nickname for your child’s birth name won’t guarantee he won’t go by a completely different nickname. It’s all about letting the kid have his own identity, for which options are important. I’m happy to be Kathleen, I love my name and the choices it gave me to decide upon Kat when I was in middle school.
I mostly agree with your comment on middle names. I only think it makes sense if the baby was named after a living relative, and the middle name is used to differentiate the baby from the same-given-name relative. My grandfather goes by his middle name – his parents choice not his – and the back-story is sort of dumb. Basically his middle name was supposed to be his first name, but there was another boy born on the same day in the same hospital with the very same first and middle name combo. At the last minute his parents chose to switch the names, but still call him by his middle name. Imagine, all of this because of the choice of some strangers that happened to give birth on the same day in the same hospital!
Some nicknames I think are OK to put on the birth certificate, such as Max, Alex, Leo, Kate. But while I sort of like Becky, Charlie, Maggie and Maisie, I would never in a million years put those names on a birth certificate. While some days I would rather not have the choice of Angie vs. Angela, I’m still glad my parents didn’t put Angie on my birth certificate.
I’m definitely on the “use the formal name” team — everyone I know named a common nickname wishes they were named the full version. I remember being in college and hearing my roommate, Meg, plead on the phone with cousins NOT to name their forthcoming baby Charlie, but Charles, as she was forever being asked if her name were really Margaret or Megan. If you want to use a nickname for your child, use it, but give them the option to have something more formal for professional purposes.
To wit: everyone calls him Marty, but the name he puts on his movies is MARTIN Scorsese.
The line about Marty/Martin? I think that’s among my new favorites – very true!
I’m also in favour of putting a formal name on a birth certificate, even if you expect to go with a shorter, nickname-style name. This way your child will feel more freedom to choose to use the full version later in life if they want to. Also, a lot of names traditionally shortened (e.g. Margaret, Elizabeth, even Charles), actually have a lot of nicnaming options, and using the traditional version of the name will also make your child feel like they can choose a different nickname when they get older. I’m ever so thankful that my parents went with Charlotte rather than some of the above-mentioned options, and I have friends with nickname-names who wish they had a fuller version to fall back on.
And Ron Howard, Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood don’t …. I prefer their movies. Martin Scorsese is like eating a gingerbread cake – looks good, but will end up giving you indigestion. 😉
Sorry I meant gingerbread house!!!!
So true! It would be so strange to see “Thomas Hanks” in a movie credit!
I’m one of those people who prefer to use formal names on the birth certificate, but lately I can see the advantage of not having to deal with formal and informal versions. I have been Angie all of my life and being called Angela almost makes me uncomfortable. But then I heard that going by the formal version of you name is more professional. So lately I find myself using Angie and Angela interchangeably, and I wonder if people think I have some identity crisis. Especially since I
I love my name Elizabeth and like having a bunch of nickname choices. My daughter is Grace, but I can call her Gracie as well. I prefer having a formal name because you can choose to use a nickname but you can’t choose to use a formal name. Grace and Elizabeth look much more polished and professional. than Gracie and Lizzie.