View Message

Archie sounds very childish and insubstantial on its own. Archer is much better and less dated.

It's different in the UK. They tend to use the names that they're going to call a child instead of using a formal name and using a nickname like Americans, for instance, do. The exception being honoring names, of course.

---

I personally prefer Archer but if I were to raise a child in a place where nickname names were common I'd go for Archie.

I much prefer Archer. Trendy or not, it does not sound childish. It also gives you the ability to still call them Archie when they are young.

I can definitely imagine an adult Archie. I think it falls into the vintage category (at least where I live), and I’ve heard of elderly Archies, who pull it off fine. Archer feels more trendy to me, and more likely to become dated to now.

I’m biased as Archie is the name my son goes by so clearly I really like it. That being said, I agree with your mum that it’s not a full name - my son’s proper name is Archibald.

---

I don’t really think it will seem dated to this era - my Grandma had an uncle Archie who was born in 1911 and it’s always been in pretty regular use (there’s at least one in every branch of my family tree), but we live in Scotland so it’s probably not the same case everywhere else. I’ve also known and worked with quite a few grown up Archies so I don’t find it too youthful - in fact when we were telling my parents the names we were considering my mum associated Archie as an old man’s name.

---

I’m not a fan of Archer to be honest and that one I do think might seem dated to this era (like Cooper or Bailey).

This message was edited 4/27/2020, 3:20 AM

I don't like the name, but I don't think it's too childish for an adult. People also say that about Zoe and Chloe and it's ridiculous. However, I agree with your mother as far as it not being a full name. One of my strongest dislikes when it comes to names are nicknames on a birth certificate.

---

As for being dated to this era, yes, they both will seem that. Archie is popular in the UK and Archer is getting there. The only way to avoid a name dated to the era in which the child is born is to use a name that's already dated or one that has never been popular.

I think it sounds youthful on an adult, but not childish - more jaunty and energetic. I prefer it to Archer.

I dated an Archie once: he was an Archibald, and genuinely Scottish. Also adult, and given to tossing the caber when back at home. Apart from that, he was rther dull really, and that's coloured my judgement. But I've got no problem with Archie on an adult: and I couldn't take anyone of any age seriously if he answered to Archibald. If not for the long-ago bf, I'd consider Archibald, nn Archie, for a Scottish terrier.

I know a young adult Archie that goes by Arch. Seems weird at first but it works surprisingly well.

---

I don’t think Archer’s much better than Archie, but at least it doesn’t have the childish -ie sound.

This message was edited 4/27/2020, 12:13 AM

I agree with your mum. In choosing that name I think that Megan and Harry wanted to seem more like the average person, a commoner. That is what they are trying to do, right?