New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Lydia and Hazel
in reply to a message by Danielle
I like both names. I like Lydia more, but Hazel is a family name. This means that I'd be more likely to use Lydia as a first name and Hazel as a middle name.
Lydia makes me think of a seventeenth-century woman in a fancy seventeenth-century dress and a high, powdered wig. I know a couple who named their now five-year-old daughter Lydia, and the reason they used the name is because of its use as a character name in "Beetlejuice"---yeah, really, lol---but I don't make that association at all.
Hazel was the name of my maternal grandmother, so that alone gives it a positive association for me. I think of her when I hear it. But I also think of a 1920s era flapper, and this makes sense, because my grandmother was in her teens and twenties in the 1920s. It makes sense in a larger view, too, though, because Hazel was a popular name at the time that 1920s flappers were born. Hazel just really screams 1920s to me.
Well, they are both trendy. Both rising. Still not what you can call common, especially Hazel. But either one or both could become common. I see Lydia getting more popular than Hazel, but I could be wrong. You just never know. At any rate, my daughter's name was rising at the time of her birth, and afterwards became more common, and I do wish it were less common, but still I don't regret using her name. She says that she still stood out name-wise in her age group, and her name the year she was born ended up being number 65, more popular than either Lydia or Hazel is now.
The fact that Hazel has had more movement could mean that it will become more popular than Lydia, I suppose. I just see Lydia as having a broader appeal, but again, I could be wrong. If Hazel does really rocket upward, then yes, some day it will become dated again, because that happens to all popular girls' names. But that probably would not happen for another fifty to sixty years. We have to give it time to get up there, the time to stay popular, the time to fall. I have a dated name, so I'll use that as an example. My name was, in the 1920s, about where Hazel is now. Rising but still not what you would call popular. Became popular in the early 1930s. Reached its peak in the early 1950s. (Though I was born about ten years after that when my name was just starting its downswing.) So started its downswing in the late 1950s. Still used, though falling, throughout the 1960s. And I think started to look really dated in the 1980s. But I was named, not when my name was just starting to get popular, but thirty-five years later when it was starting its downswing. So if you were to use Hazel now, your daughter wouldn't have a dated name until she was well into middle, if not old, age.
If my youngest grandson had been a girl, he would have been named Hazel.
Lydia makes me think of a seventeenth-century woman in a fancy seventeenth-century dress and a high, powdered wig. I know a couple who named their now five-year-old daughter Lydia, and the reason they used the name is because of its use as a character name in "Beetlejuice"---yeah, really, lol---but I don't make that association at all.
Hazel was the name of my maternal grandmother, so that alone gives it a positive association for me. I think of her when I hear it. But I also think of a 1920s era flapper, and this makes sense, because my grandmother was in her teens and twenties in the 1920s. It makes sense in a larger view, too, though, because Hazel was a popular name at the time that 1920s flappers were born. Hazel just really screams 1920s to me.
Well, they are both trendy. Both rising. Still not what you can call common, especially Hazel. But either one or both could become common. I see Lydia getting more popular than Hazel, but I could be wrong. You just never know. At any rate, my daughter's name was rising at the time of her birth, and afterwards became more common, and I do wish it were less common, but still I don't regret using her name. She says that she still stood out name-wise in her age group, and her name the year she was born ended up being number 65, more popular than either Lydia or Hazel is now.
The fact that Hazel has had more movement could mean that it will become more popular than Lydia, I suppose. I just see Lydia as having a broader appeal, but again, I could be wrong. If Hazel does really rocket upward, then yes, some day it will become dated again, because that happens to all popular girls' names. But that probably would not happen for another fifty to sixty years. We have to give it time to get up there, the time to stay popular, the time to fall. I have a dated name, so I'll use that as an example. My name was, in the 1920s, about where Hazel is now. Rising but still not what you would call popular. Became popular in the early 1930s. Reached its peak in the early 1950s. (Though I was born about ten years after that when my name was just starting its downswing.) So started its downswing in the late 1950s. Still used, though falling, throughout the 1960s. And I think started to look really dated in the 1980s. But I was named, not when my name was just starting to get popular, but thirty-five years later when it was starting its downswing. So if you were to use Hazel now, your daughter wouldn't have a dated name until she was well into middle, if not old, age.
If my youngest grandson had been a girl, he would have been named Hazel.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1