New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] American "classic" girls" names: one way to define it
A lot of people on this and other names sites seem to throw around the term "classic names" without defining it very clearly. I thought that perhaps one way to define a "classic name" would be a name which has always been at least moderately in use for the entire 125 years that the Social Security site has year-by-year data. So I looked at the top 300 girls' names of 2004 and saw which ones of them have never been out of the top 300 in the last 125 years. Here is the list; since it's from the SSA data, every different spelling is considered a separate name, and as you can see 3 different spellings of Katherine and 2 of Sarah meet this definition of "classic". They are listed in order of their lowest ranking ever, and the year that lowest rank is found is in parentheses:
Elizabeth 26 (1945)
Mary 63 (2004)
Katherine 105 (1938)
Anna 106 (1971)
Catherine 106 (2003)
Sarah 119 (1959)
Kathryn 122 (2004)
Laura 129 (2004)
Margaret 133 (2004)
Julia 143 (1977)
Maria 168 (1899)
Sara 184 (1958)
Rebecca 185 (1926)
Rachel 202 (1951)
Victoria 269 (1936)
Emily 274 (1962)
Evelyn 289 (1977)
There were also nine "near misses", names now in the top 300 that have never been less popular than #400 on the SSA list:
Charlotte 311 (1982)
Caroline 329 (1956)
Lydia 334 (1975)
Amy 356 (1928)
Eva 362 (1997)
Miriam 376 (1969)
Nina 376 (1978)
Claudia 380 (1929)
Grace 390 (1974)
Can you think of a better way to empirically define what is "classic"? Do any of the above names surprise you? I think many people will be surprised that Evelyn has been so consistently popular; that's probably because what seems to be maintaining its popularity recently is the fact that Hispanics are now fond of it.
Elizabeth 26 (1945)
Mary 63 (2004)
Katherine 105 (1938)
Anna 106 (1971)
Catherine 106 (2003)
Sarah 119 (1959)
Kathryn 122 (2004)
Laura 129 (2004)
Margaret 133 (2004)
Julia 143 (1977)
Maria 168 (1899)
Sara 184 (1958)
Rebecca 185 (1926)
Rachel 202 (1951)
Victoria 269 (1936)
Emily 274 (1962)
Evelyn 289 (1977)
There were also nine "near misses", names now in the top 300 that have never been less popular than #400 on the SSA list:
Charlotte 311 (1982)
Caroline 329 (1956)
Lydia 334 (1975)
Amy 356 (1928)
Eva 362 (1997)
Miriam 376 (1969)
Nina 376 (1978)
Claudia 380 (1929)
Grace 390 (1974)
Can you think of a better way to empirically define what is "classic"? Do any of the above names surprise you? I think many people will be surprised that Evelyn has been so consistently popular; that's probably because what seems to be maintaining its popularity recently is the fact that Hispanics are now fond of it.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Although you've used American data, I wouldn't have been surprised if you'd said these were the names that were most enduringly popular in England as well. I'd call every single one of those names a 'classic.'
1
it
- mirfak
- mirfak
1
fascinating!
And Claudia and Nina surprise me, too.
The thing that struck me was the overall 'American' feel of the names (having never lived in America, maybe I shouldn't guess)- I've noticed that the details of naming trends seem to differ between the US, Canada, the UK and Australia/NZ, but I thought there was a core of anglo names that wouldn't be tied to location. I think Laura, Amy, Eva Evelyn, Caroline and Kathryn (that spelling), Emily rather than Emma and Anna rather than Anne are what make it feel that way, but I'm not sure.
It's odd that not one form of Jane/Janet/Jean/Joanne or Ellen/Helen/Eleanor makes the list- though I suppose the variety kind of answers that question.
Off the top of my head, for classic names I would rhyme off the ones you see all the time on tombstones or in the early novels- Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Catherine, Margaret, Jane, Helen, Eleanor, Emma, Sophie/Sophia (though that's rather posh), Sarah, Lucy and maybe Frances and Dorothy.
I think my definition of classic would be a name that has been consistently in use for a long time- say 250+ years. The problem with going back just 125 years is that it's barely more than that 3-generation cycle of oral history the academics are always on about.
Do have the data to come up with a similar list for other anglophone countries?
sa
And Claudia and Nina surprise me, too.
The thing that struck me was the overall 'American' feel of the names (having never lived in America, maybe I shouldn't guess)- I've noticed that the details of naming trends seem to differ between the US, Canada, the UK and Australia/NZ, but I thought there was a core of anglo names that wouldn't be tied to location. I think Laura, Amy, Eva Evelyn, Caroline and Kathryn (that spelling), Emily rather than Emma and Anna rather than Anne are what make it feel that way, but I'm not sure.
It's odd that not one form of Jane/Janet/Jean/Joanne or Ellen/Helen/Eleanor makes the list- though I suppose the variety kind of answers that question.
Off the top of my head, for classic names I would rhyme off the ones you see all the time on tombstones or in the early novels- Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Catherine, Margaret, Jane, Helen, Eleanor, Emma, Sophie/Sophia (though that's rather posh), Sarah, Lucy and maybe Frances and Dorothy.
I think my definition of classic would be a name that has been consistently in use for a long time- say 250+ years. The problem with going back just 125 years is that it's barely more than that 3-generation cycle of oral history the academics are always on about.
Do have the data to come up with a similar list for other anglophone countries?
sa
This message was edited 4/27/2006, 2:30 PM
1
I've definitely tapped into the classics as my girls are named Katherine, Victoria and Anna! My husband adores Mary and Elizabeth and I've considered those as well as Laura, Julia, Margaret, Rebecca and Maria at one time or another. I suppose that makes me boring and predictable (blushes).
The are names on this list that surprise me, namely, Nina, Evelyn, Claudia and Miriam. I've never known any.
The are names on this list that surprise me, namely, Nina, Evelyn, Claudia and Miriam. I've never known any.
1
The only one that I find odd is Claudia, since I've never even met one--the idea that it's pretty well-used is an interesting one.
I believe Nina, though. :) If Nina Simone could use it way back when (we'll ignore the fact that she was born Eunice), it's got to be a classic of sorts.
Speaking of Nina Simone, I always thought Simone was a pretty classic name, but it looks like it isn't! Do you have any ideas about why it didn't make the top 1000 until the 60s?
Array
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.
You might even provide a Heaven for them. We need You for that. Hell we can make for ourselves.
I believe Nina, though. :) If Nina Simone could use it way back when (we'll ignore the fact that she was born Eunice), it's got to be a classic of sorts.
Speaking of Nina Simone, I always thought Simone was a pretty classic name, but it looks like it isn't! Do you have any ideas about why it didn't make the top 1000 until the 60s?
Array
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.
You might even provide a Heaven for them. We need You for that. Hell we can make for ourselves.
1
Simone was originally a French name. English speakers never seem to have created a feminine form of Simon for themselves. Simone seems to have only become generally used in the USA after 1960, when the French actress Simone Signoret won an Oscar and therefore introduced the name to American parents.
1
Thanks for the background--that's interesting.
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.
You might even provide a Heaven for them. We need You for that. Hell we can make for ourselves.
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.
You might even provide a Heaven for them. We need You for that. Hell we can make for ourselves.
1
Nina?
I would have never guessed!
I would have never guessed!
1
From what i understand, the reason why its so vague to begin with is because it means different things:
Period of time
How Conservative in use
How Common
I would say period of time seems the most apparent when describing it, yes. Common use, second.
In other words i concider a classic name one which may not have been consistantly popular, so much as a name dating back from 1750 to 1930's.....i think i stop at 30's because thats when i see a very new wave of names taking place....thats just me.
Period of time
How Conservative in use
How Common
I would say period of time seems the most apparent when describing it, yes. Common use, second.
In other words i concider a classic name one which may not have been consistantly popular, so much as a name dating back from 1750 to 1930's.....i think i stop at 30's because thats when i see a very new wave of names taking place....thats just me.
1
I think that "classic" is like "science fiction" - it's whatever you're pointing at when you use the term.
Seriously, though, I think that many people use "classic" when they actually mean "classical", as in "from the 'olden days' like that classical music". This is why many of the so-called 'classic' names from the SSA data leave most people cold: the data is more modern than is necessary for an accurate depiction, and names such as Nina might not be in there if there was another century's worth of data to consider.
I see "classic" currently being used as an (unintentional) synonym for "Regency", "Victorian" and "Edwardian" (and whichever George was around in the early 1900s, I can never remember lol). And it is most often applied to Biblical names and, for girls, flower/plant names.
I'm not sure that there *is* one definition or an empirical system that would be acceptable to everyone. It's very much a subjective description rather than a discrete category.
♦ Chrisell ♦
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. - J.R.R. Tolkien.
Seriously, though, I think that many people use "classic" when they actually mean "classical", as in "from the 'olden days' like that classical music". This is why many of the so-called 'classic' names from the SSA data leave most people cold: the data is more modern than is necessary for an accurate depiction, and names such as Nina might not be in there if there was another century's worth of data to consider.
I see "classic" currently being used as an (unintentional) synonym for "Regency", "Victorian" and "Edwardian" (and whichever George was around in the early 1900s, I can never remember lol). And it is most often applied to Biblical names and, for girls, flower/plant names.
I'm not sure that there *is* one definition or an empirical system that would be acceptable to everyone. It's very much a subjective description rather than a discrete category.
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. - J.R.R. Tolkien.
1
Well said
Our second wedding anniversary
1
Interesting list and I think all these names are good names. Funny that I seldom see Mary, Maria, Miriam and Nina discussed on name sites.
Though I don't agree that only always popular names are "classic". Then they are too few! I consider old names classic, even if they sometimes are less popular. Like Emma, Diana, Helena, Alexandra, Sophia, Madeline, Leah, Isabella, Jane, Joanna and Cecilia.
And if a name is found in a novel by the Brontë sisters, Jane Austen or Charles Dickens, then I consider it a classic. They have a classic feeling.
Also, when I think "classic", I don't think "American classic", more "international classic". Most of your names are international classics but there may be more which are classic in other countries but new in USA.
"But it’s all right now.
I learned my lesson well.
You see you can’t please everyone
So you got to please yourself."
Rick Nelson, GardenParty
"It does not become me to make myself smaller than I am." (Edith Södergran 1891-1923)
Though I don't agree that only always popular names are "classic". Then they are too few! I consider old names classic, even if they sometimes are less popular. Like Emma, Diana, Helena, Alexandra, Sophia, Madeline, Leah, Isabella, Jane, Joanna and Cecilia.
And if a name is found in a novel by the Brontë sisters, Jane Austen or Charles Dickens, then I consider it a classic. They have a classic feeling.
Also, when I think "classic", I don't think "American classic", more "international classic". Most of your names are international classics but there may be more which are classic in other countries but new in USA.
"But it’s all right now.
I learned my lesson well.
You see you can’t please everyone
So you got to please yourself."
Rick Nelson, GardenParty
"It does not become me to make myself smaller than I am." (Edith Södergran 1891-1923)
1
A few that surprised me as being "classic" are Eva, Miriam, Nina, and Claudia. The others are very "classic" to me. Names that have been passed down from generation to generation and used with such vigor that some think they are overused (like Mary).
I didn't see Amelia or Hannah in this list and that surprises me a bit because they have been used quite a bit in English speaking countries.
Thanks for this list it was very helpful! :)
Ciaran Douglas, Aidan Stone, Simon Andrew & Amy Frances, Julia Mary, Elena Beatrice
I didn't see Amelia or Hannah in this list and that surprises me a bit because they have been used quite a bit in English speaking countries.
Thanks for this list it was very helpful! :)
Ciaran Douglas, Aidan Stone, Simon Andrew & Amy Frances, Julia Mary, Elena Beatrice
1
Wow; good job with the research there.
I've now seen the error of my ways and will probably not throw "classic" around as much. (I'm being serious, too; ever since Chrisell shared her views on the term "unique," I consciously try to call names unusual and not unique).
ETA: Thought you might be interested to know I used Cleveland Kent as a combo on the games board. I wanted to use Cleveland because it fit the parameters assigned for that round, and your two names are becoming inseperable to me. This isn't a bad thing, but I thought I'd share. I'd say it flows well. :)
I've now seen the error of my ways and will probably not throw "classic" around as much. (I'm being serious, too; ever since Chrisell shared her views on the term "unique," I consciously try to call names unusual and not unique).
ETA: Thought you might be interested to know I used Cleveland Kent as a combo on the games board. I wanted to use Cleveland because it fit the parameters assigned for that round, and your two names are becoming inseperable to me. This isn't a bad thing, but I thought I'd share. I'd say it flows well. :)
This message was edited 4/26/2006, 6:43 PM
1
My, I've never looked at the games board! I guess I'll have to see what sort of games people are playing with my name. :)
I'll pass along your comment about the name flowing well to my mother. She's the one responsible for it, after all. Though she created it by naming me after her father and my own father. :)
I'll pass along your comment about the name flowing well to my mother. She's the one responsible for it, after all. Though she created it by naming me after her father and my own father. :)
1
It is a surprise that Laura is not on the list!
1
I agree with your definition. Some people seem to use "classic" to describe any traditional name or any name they happen to like.
I'm surprised by Miriam. I've never met anyone with that name, young or old nor do I recall seeing in in announcements (not that I follow those too closely). Someone must be using it though.
Interesting post, thanks for compiling that info.
I'm surprised by Miriam. I've never met anyone with that name, young or old nor do I recall seeing in in announcements (not that I follow those too closely). Someone must be using it though.
Interesting post, thanks for compiling that info.
1
I think it's currently popular in the Hispanic population. Also, a girl in my neighborhood is named Miriam (she is called Miri), she is adopted and I'm not sure if her adoptive parents or birth parents gave her that name.
1