Brooke
Replies
I see it as a bit dated, but not overly so, because it was never used in too high of volumes like Tiffany or Brittany or Ashley, that just scream, I was born in the 80s/90s.
I've known two Brookes, they are both fantastically interesting women.
I'm not a huge fan of the name, or the sound, but I can understand how the 'br' and the hard 'k' sound can be appealing.
I've known two Brookes, they are both fantastically interesting women.
I'm not a huge fan of the name, or the sound, but I can understand how the 'br' and the hard 'k' sound can be appealing.
I like Brooke and it doesn't feel dated at all, but perhaps because it wasn't big here in the 80s/90s
I know of two Brookes, One is 5 and one is 3, so it feels young and refreshing to me
I know of two Brookes, One is 5 and one is 3, so it feels young and refreshing to me
Brooke has been on my mind a lot recently. I'm not a fan of it but I don't mind it being used as a middle name. I don't care for it as a first name though.
Brooke looks better than Brook.
Brooke looks better than Brook.
It's slightly dated, but I still like it. Brooke is a strong name that still works for someone who is very feminine.
I know Brookes ranging from their 30s down to the 7-year-old Brooke who's in my son's class. It's pretty and has always sounded cool, calm, and collected to my ear. If it's dated, it's only a little bit so. I think it as a well-established modern name. There's nothing wrong with that.
I prefer it spelled with the E. Brook is more word than name to me.
I prefer it spelled with the E. Brook is more word than name to me.
I think it's nice. It's a little dated. I don't see how it could be timeless, since it's clearly a 20th century invention. Anyway, good little nature image. Better than Bächlein.
Brooke or Brook? I don't know, I like both a lot. I tend to prefer my nature names literal, so I'd probably go with Brook.
Brooke or Brook? I don't know, I like both a lot. I tend to prefer my nature names literal, so I'd probably go with Brook.
Is it a 20th century invention and nature name? I wondered. I mean, it does seem like that now, but I think it's more clearly a surname-name-turned-firstname. I get zero nature image from Brooke.
It has been "regularly if infrequently" used since the 1920s at least, according to my favorite name dictionary. When I googled I found Roberta Brooke Astor, who went by Brooke and was born 1902 (although she wasn't famous until much later).
I'm challenging all who read this post to find earlier Brookes or Brooks!
It has been "regularly if infrequently" used since the 1920s at least, according to my favorite name dictionary. When I googled I found Roberta Brooke Astor, who went by Brooke and was born 1902 (although she wasn't famous until much later).
I'm challenging all who read this post to find earlier Brookes or Brooks!
To me it just feels timeless. Maybe because it's also a word, I don't know. I just don't think it will ever really feel dated. I don't think a name has to be very old to feel timeless. Juliet isn't that old (at least not nearly as old as Elizabeth) but feels timeless to me, same with Olivia and Miranda.
I think it was used before 1902, but very rarely and mostly on guys (spelled Brook). Just a guess, I don't know how I could find them.
Alexandra never made the top 1000 before 1914. I always thought that was weird. I wasn't commonly used in the US until the early 1980s. But I guess it was popular in England before and of course there are historic figures named Alexandra.
I think it was used before 1902, but very rarely and mostly on guys (spelled Brook). Just a guess, I don't know how I could find them.
Alexandra never made the top 1000 before 1914. I always thought that was weird. I wasn't commonly used in the US until the early 1980s. But I guess it was popular in England before and of course there are historic figures named Alexandra.
This message was edited 3/8/2013, 5:56 AM
Seemed that way to me, glanced at charts, charts confirmed suspicion. I mean, people may have used it here and there earlier, but not in a way significant enough to compare to its late 20C usage that would ever distinguish it as "timeless." It was obscure before the 50s, and became mainstream in the following decades, and no earlier. But I suppose that's not really what you're asking, huh?
Since it's basically an English word that means Brook, I feel every right to reclaim it as a nature name. To my mind it's about as naturey as Grace is puritan... ie not really, but, well, yes, in an obvious kind of way.
Since it's basically an English word that means Brook, I feel every right to reclaim it as a nature name. To my mind it's about as naturey as Grace is puritan... ie not really, but, well, yes, in an obvious kind of way.
I hate the sound of it - only when I think about it. It's like a burp. It's just a shade away from Burke, which I think is so ugly it's funny. But Brooke is a name I've been hearing my whole life, since I first heard of Brooke Shields when she was a child actress in the 1970s, and when she was a model in her teens her image was pretty saturating. So I've always thought of Brooke as a fairly glammy, edgy sort of name, if not a classy one at all. And I don't really LIKE it, but I have no real problem with it. It's a good name.
To me it has to have the E on the end to be a woman's personal name. Without the E it seems abrupt and tiny.
I don't think it seems dated. It was never trendy enough. And Brooklyn is in, so Brooke can't really be out. I've never met any Brookes personally, that I can recall.
To me it has to have the E on the end to be a woman's personal name. Without the E it seems abrupt and tiny.
I don't think it seems dated. It was never trendy enough. And Brooklyn is in, so Brooke can't really be out. I've never met any Brookes personally, that I can recall.
This message was edited 3/7/2013, 4:31 PM