I am expecting baby #4 (a girl) end of October and cannot make up my mind on this baby’s name. This is my 2nd girl and my other children are already Ryder (boy), Lyndon (boy), Ellison (girl).

I am debating between Rowan and Harlow, both with the middle name Christine. Our last name is a 1 syllable common last name that start with a C.

I prefer the name Rowan, however I am worried that it is too matchy by starting with an R like my first son’s name, and ending with an -n like my other 2 kids’ names. Also when I googled the name Harlow with our last name there is a romance author that has some smutty romance novels published, not a complete deal breaker but not ideal.

Please let me know if you think Rowan Christine is a complete no-go based off the other sibling names and saying them all together. If that’s the case then I would switch and consider Harlow as my main choice. I’m about 60/40 at the moment.

Thank you!

If you were equally split between Rowan and Harlow, I would vote for Harlow: I like that it introduces a new first letter and a new end-sound, and I like the way the whole sibling group sounds together.

But since you prefer Rowan, I think you should use Rowan: in the long run, I don’t think it’s going to matter that it repeats a first letter from one name and last letter from two. And I think Rowan Christine is a smashing combination.

Update on Baby Girl Keegan-without-the-K

Update on Baby Boy Tomlinson, Brother to Cyanna

HI Swistle,

Wondering if you could put up a poll with the question “Does Ronan and Julia sound too similar to Romeo and Juliet?”

Yes, I would still use the sibling name set
Yes, I would NOT use that sibling name set
No, I would use the sibling name set
Yes, I would just say “Julia and Ronan” instead of “Ronan and Julia”

You can obviously change any wording you see fit! Julia is our top girl name and Ronan is a contender for a baby boy. It hit me as I said them together that it sounds way too similar to Romeo and Juliet and it would personally stop me from using that sibling set. I am curious what others think?

Thanks!

I can’t do a poll, but I can do a free-form-answer comments section!

If I were choosing the options, I would probably go for more like:

• Yes, but I still think it makes a good sibling-name set
• Yes, and I don’t think it works as a sibling-name set
• Yes, but I think it’s entirely fixed by saying “Julia and Ronan”
• No, I don’t think of Romeo and Juliet

I have been thinking about how I am now out of touch with Today’s Babies. For a long time there, I knew lots and lots of families having babies, and my kids were all young and in school with a lot of young kids, and I knew their friends’ siblings’ names too, and I felt pretty In Touch. But now, I keep getting surprised by trends happening outside my view. This is surely what happens to every grandparent-aged person, which explains why so many of them(/us!) say things like “But that’s an Old Person Name!!” and “Wow, THAT’S an unusual name!!”—often about names currently in the Top Ten.

Recently someone told me they’d chosen a very old-fashioned name for their baby, and I was surprised to find out the name was Millie. I would not have put the name Millie in the category “very old-fashioned”—but I am a full generation older than these parents. It made me wonder what other names current parents might think of as Old Person Names—and which of the names I’D consider Old Person Names they’re getting ready to surprise me by bringing back!

I was wondering if some of us who ARE still in touch with Babies and Baby-Havers would share with us what they’re hearing. Not just the statistics we can see by looking at the Social Security Administration’s baby name data—but actual on-the-ground, in-the-daycares/preschools/friend-groups data.

This could be answered in a variety of ways: you could say some TRENDS you’re seeing, or you could say some particular names you feel like you’re hearing everywhere now; you can say just one name that’s caught your attention or you can make a long long list.

Hi Swistle,

I know you must be inundated with name requests but wonder if you would be able to provide even just a brief explanation of the vibe you feel for the name Audra. My husband and I are seriously considering it for our baby girl but aren’t able to rule it in or out definitively as it is uncommon and not a name we heard before we started looking at baby names.

I have seen you list it as an option in many of your posts but it’s unclear to me the reason it is suggested. I have read its entry in “The Baby Name Wizard” book and am still uncertain. Is it vintage-y? Sort of a modern classic? I have scoured baby name forums and can’t really pinpoint the vibe that it presents to most people. I have test driven the name to friends and strangers – reactions are mostly neutral, as it seems most people are unfamiliar with the name but there have been effusive reactions among them “gorgeous!”. We are in Canada so I don’t know if it’s more known in the US but I would assume it’s similar. I suppose my question is very similar to your recent post “Baby Name to Discuss: Gemma.”

Thank you so much for reading!

Oh, yes, this is another good one to get a collective response on. I think I tend to suggest Audra when it feels like the parents are looking for a name that is approachable and not too difficult to pronounce or spell, yet not a modern invented name, and also not something they’re likely to encounter in the wild. It’s familiar from the similar-sounding name Audrey; and when I encountered it on the one person I’ve ever encountered it on, I found it easy to learn.

The one Audra I know of has a brother named Ev@n, which to me indicates that the parents have a different style for boy names than for girl names. I’d be more curious to know what sister names we’ve heard of for Audra.

I don’t have a strong feeling about the name’s style. I would put it with other unusual choices such as Gemma, Willa, Bianca, Nadia. For popularity reasons alone, I wouldn’t put it with Sophia, Olivia, etc., but I don’t think those are a style clash. I would be similarly unlikely to put it with names such as Elizabeth, Catherine, Margaret—but again, I wouldn’t say it was a clash. I would say it clashes with modern unisex sister names such as Bailey, Riley, Logan, Ryan, Everly. Well, and not just the unisex ones, because I would also say it clashes with names such as Brinley, Kinsley, Paisley, Keelyn.

According to the Social Security Administration, the name’s usage in the United States has been fairly rare, and it’s been out of the Top 1000 for over two decades. There’s an interesting little thing where it dropped out of the Top 1000 in 1939, and then reappeared in 1966 already at #283—a very sudden and successful reappearance! I searched online for “Audra 1965” and found it was the name of a character played by Linda Evans on the TV show The Big Valley, which aired from 1965-1969. The name hung around for awhile in the 200s/300s/400s ranks, dropping out of the Top 500 by the late 1980s, and then out of the Top 1000 a little over a decade later. In 2023, the name Audra was given to 108 new baby girls in the U.S.; that’s similar to the current usage of the names Mildred, Odessa, and Yvette.

For those of you who don’t have your copy of The Baby Name Wizard at hand, here is the entry for Audra:

This pretty, old-fashioned name had its revival 25 years ahead of the pack. Audra is the only name you’ll find in both the Stately Antiques and ’70s-’80s categories. The result is a name that can fit with many different styles but truly stands alone.

It’s odd to me that it WOULD be in the ’70s-’80s category, since Audra’s absolute highest rank during those years was #300; its lowest was #579. Filing it with the other popular names from that era (Melissa, Michelle, Amy, Nicole, Kimberly) doesn’t make much sense; and it doesn’t seem like a Mom Name to me now, the way those other former hits do. (Pretty soon we’re going to have to start calling those Grandma Names.) The one Audra I know was born in the late 1990s.

How does the name Audra strike YOU? Where WOULD you file it? What sister names would you imagine it going with? Do you know any real-life Audras, and do they have siblings, especially sisters?

Update on Baby Girl Carrot-with-an-M, Sister to Avil@, R0se, Ze1ie, and Cl@ire

Update on Baby Girl Mc_____ery; Using the Names of Miscarried Siblings as Honor Names

Hi Swistle,

I emailed you a few days ago but re-read your advice from last time we named a baby and talked more with my husband so I’m rewriting and refining my email. I think we’re pretty set on names if our baby is a girl, but could use some help with boy names.

My husband and I are expecting our second baby, unknown sex, in July and we’d love your help with name suggestions. This is likely our last baby, but we may consider having one more. You and your readers were so helpful when we were considering name options for our son in 2022 and we’d love your help again.

Our son’s name is Ge0rge S1las Matthson-Dickson. George is my husband’s maternal grandfathers’s name. My husband and I both love the name George because it’s classic, easy to spell and pronounce, and not too popular. We also love that it honors my husband’s grandfather. We chose the middle name Silas because we like its meaning and how it sounds with George. To us, George is the perfect name and we’re struggling to come up with other names we like as much as we like George.

Our second choice for a boy name two years ago was Rowan, but we’re not sure how we feel about that name now. Last time we wrote to you, you noticed that some of the names we liked didn’t seem like they belonged in the same sibling set, and you gave George and Rowan as an example of that. I still like the name Rowan and it doesn’t feel too out of place to me as a brother for George, but I’m also not sure it feels right. I’m hoping you and your readers can help us come up with some other options to consider.

We prefer more classic names that are recognizable but not too popular. If the baby is a girl we’ll likely name her Harriet or Felicity. I’m a little hesitant with names that end in “n” because of the hyphenated last names that both end in “n”. Because George is such a common name, several other boy names don’t seem to work as sibling names because there are famous George’s with those names as last names (George Ezra, for example). We also like the name Arthur, but George and Arthur together sound too stuffy and too much like we’re trying to name our children after British kings.

If the baby is a boy, their middle name will most likely be Alexander, which is an honor name for my brother. Names we can’t use for a boy are Robert, William, and Levi.

I’d appreciate any help and suggestions you have, either on the names we’re considering or others you think we should add to our list of contenders.

Thank you,

K

You have seen me say this many times, but one of the reasons I say it so many times is that I think it is so easy to forget: I don’t think the goal can be to find a name you like as much as the name George. The name George has ceased to be a name, and is now Your Beloved Child, and no other name can come close to that. Besides, even just mathematically, if parents choose their top favorite name for their first child, all the other names are by definition less-liked. So right off the bat, we can decrease the pressure: your goal is only to find your favorite name out of the pool of non-George names. And soon whatever name you choose will ALSO cease to be a name and will ALSO be Your Beloved Child, and very likely you will wonder how you ever had any doubt that IT TOO was the best name of all names, and you will say to yourselves “Swistle said we couldn’t find a name we liked as much as the name George BUT WE DID!!”

I do think it would be just fine to use the name Rowan. If some people in the U.S. see the two names as somewhat different styles, that’s of very little importance: plenty of families use a happy assortment of names and no one says boo to a goose about it. I’ve even seen some very surprising combinations (e.g., Catherine and Mackenzie) and still no goose-booing. I agree with you about the N-endings, though: Rowan Matthson-Dickson starts to feel like a bit of a trudge.

I also agree with all your other points about the name George. Because of course immediately I want to suggest Louis or Charles or Henry or Philip—but those are too Royal Family. And then I think of Alfred, dear Alfred—but perhaps that’s too stuffy. Or Paul! Too Beatles. Elliot! But George Eliot. Well, let’s see what we can collectively come up with.

Frederick would be, I admit it, A Lot of Name. I am someone who LIKES A Lot of Name. Frederick Matthson-Dickson. George and Fred. Georgie and Freddie.

Oliver: again, several syllables. But I like the way the softer consonants work with the harder consonants of the surname: Oliver Matthson-Dickson. George and Oliver.

Theodore, another long one, but George and Theo sounds very natural to me. Is it visually cute that they’d both have an -eo-, or does that set up pressure for a future possible third name? I don’t think it would make me feel pressured.

IS Elliot ruled out by George Eliot? It isn’t as if it’s a negative association. She wrote seven books in the 1800s; is the connection still too strong, 150 years later, or would it mostly make people feel as if those two names were inexplicably good together? Elliott Matthson-Dickson. George and Elliot.

IS Henry too royal? Certainly Henry VIII has had many, many books written about him. And there’s Prince Henry, but I personally think of him exclusively as Prince Harry. George and Henry feel like such a very nice pairing. I think if it were me, I would go ahead and use them. Henry Matthson-Dickson. Henry Alexander Matthson-Dickson. That’s my top pick, though maybe not if I wanted to reserve Harriet for a girl. It’s unlikely that both (or even EITHER) Henry and Harriet would want to use the nickname Harry; my main hesitation would be about having two H names, both with internal R and long-E and short-E sounds.

IS Alfred too stuffy? Alfred Matthson-Dickson. George and Alfred. George and Fred. Georgie and Alfie. I think that might end up leaning more toward adorable than stuffy.

Perhaps something like Leo: not at all stuffy; softer sounds. Leo Matthson-Dickson. George and Leo. Another repeated -eo- situation.

Ian. It does end in -n. Ian Matthson-Dickson. George and Ian.

This is a jump, but: Felix. Felix Matthson-Dickson, with the fun repeating X sound. George and Felix. Not, though, if you want to reserve Felicity for a possible future girl.

Or Harris. Not what I would have immediately put with George, but the combination grows on me. It would rule out Harriet for a possible future girl. Harris Matthson-Dickson. George and Harris.

Or Reid. Reid Matthson-Dickson. George and Reid.

Thomas. Traditional, doesn’t for me smack of royalty. Thomas Matthson-Dickson. George and Thomas. Georgie and Tommy.

Daniel. A different type of traditional than George, but both nice ancient names. Daniel Matthson-Dickson. George and Daniel. Georgie and Danny. George and Dan.

Similarly: David. It feels like such a common name, but I can’t think of a single young David. David Matthson-Dickson. George and David.

Wesley. Wesley Matthson-Dickson. George and Wesley. Georgie and Wes.

I wonder if we’re getting about ready to bring Claude back. Claude Matthson-Dickson. George and Claude.

Oh—what about John? Overlooked for current babies, yet a long history of usage just like George. It can take a little effort to overcome the feeling of familiarity: picture a warm little baby in your arms, and then think the name John to yourself until it loses its John Doe vibe and goes back to being a real name. He’d have the nickname Jack if he wanted it, but at this point John feels fresher to me. John Matthson-Dickson. George and John. Geordie and Jack.

Update on Baby Naming Issue: Choosing a New Name for a Transgender 5-Year-Old