Update (and photo!) on Baby Girl Kale, Sister to Maxwell (Max), Annika (Annie), Theodore (Theo/Bear)!
Update on Baby Girl Tower-with-a-Br, Sister to Lucia; A Longer Form for Mae/May!
Update (and photo!) on Baby Girl F@rthing, Sister to @rden M@e!
Update on Middle Name Challenge: Matilda Eve or Matilda Pearl!

A. writes:

My husband and I are having difficulty selecting a name for our boy, due in July. We have agreed on a favorite from among the names we both like. My husband is willing to commit to it but I am still going back and forth between feeling that “yes, this is the name” and worrying that giving our son this name would be a disservice to him.

The name is Harper. As I am sure you know, it has risen quickly and quite highly on popularity lists, for girls. It has also continued to rise for boys but at a much more modest rate. I am fine with my son having a unisex name, even one that skews more female than male. But I am worried that Harper is so popular for girls, and so much more so for girls than for boys, that it is really coming to be thought of as girl’s name (I think Ashley is a good example of a name I think of this way) as opposed to a unisex name, more likely to belong to a girl but still sounding fine on a boy (Taylor is a name I think of in this way).

My husband argues that Harper has a masculine sound, so it will always be appropriate for a boy, no matter how many girls are using it, and I agree with him in preferring it as a boy name. I also think that, despite the female popularity ranking, because less people are being given the most popular names than they used to be, girls named Harper will never really be as pervasive as girls named Ashley were in the it’s heyday. It also seems to me that unisex names on boys are a bit more accepted lately than they used to be, names like Avery, Quinn and Emerson still seem to be considered, by many people, to be viable choices for either sex.

I could really use your advice to help me stop wringing my hands over this, I am ready to either commit or move on and I am hoping you and your readers can give me the push I need to do one or the other. If it helps, this is our first child. If this baby were a girl, her name would have been Scarlett. Our last name sounds like Sturgess. Would we be crazy to name our boy Harper? Please, please help!

I disagree with your husband that the name Harper has an inherently and enduringly masculine sound. What sounds masculine or feminine to one generation can completely change for the next generation; your example of Ashley is an excellent one.

The name Harper is difficult to divide into masculine/feminine sounds even if we look at it only from the perspective of what’s currently in style. The syllable “Har” is found in names such as Harmony, Harlow(e), Harley/Harlee/Harleigh, Harvey, and Harlan. We may or may not want to include Charlotte/Charlie/Charles: the sound is similar but affected by the blend with the C. The “Har” found in Harris and Harry and Harrison and Harriet and Harold and Sahara is changed considerably by the pronunciation of the vowel, but may still affect the perception of the letters Har-. We find -per in names such as Piper, Juniper, Cooper, Hooper, Jasper, Temperance, Persephone, Pepper, Perry, Casper.

We could break this down even more: -ar- is found in Arthur and Karl and Arlo and Scarlett and Charlotte and Margaret; -er is found in Heather and Avery and Jennifer and Summer and Tanner and Parker and Christopher. But what I’m seeing overall is that the name Harper doesn’t include any sounds that, if the name became entirely used for girls in the future, would cause it to continue to sound like a boy’s name. Names sound clearly feminine when they’re being used for girls; those same names sound clearly masculine when they’re being used for boys. It’s similar to the way pink used to seem boyish, while blue seemed girlish: usage strongly affects perception.

Let’s look instead at the current usage of the name Harper, since that’s what will affect a child given the name right now. In 2012 in the United States, it was ranked #605 for boys and #24 for girls. It was given to 414 new baby boys and 7154 new baby girls: the average U.S. resident will encounter 17 girls named Harper for every 1 boy named Harper. That’s a large enough difference for it to enter significantly into the package deal of the name Harper. Some people/families would enjoy that and would in fact aim for it; others would be irritated by it and want to avoid it. You’ll have to talk it over and decide if you’re the sort of people who can good-naturedly correct strangers about it again and again, or if having to do so would make you cranky and frustrated.

It will also depend on your particular community. If you live in an area where boys are named Emerson and Homer and Avery and Reece, you’ll encounter fewer issues than if you live in an area where the majority of boys are named John and William and David. If you have friends with children in daycare or preschool, you might be able to get a good sample of local kid names from those class lists.

It will also depend on your son’s temperament, but that’s something we can’t know in advance. Picturing the boys I went to school with, some of them would have made something really cool out of having an unusual or unexpected name, and some of them would have suffered.

Another consideration is future sibling names. Do you have another name you like for a boy that would work well as a brother name? A name you like for a girl that would work as a sister name? I would guess Harper and Scarlett were sisters, even knowing that Harper is sometimes used for boys—something about the similar sassy style and sound. But I would guess Parker and Scarlett were brother-sister, even knowing that Parker is also used for girls.

Let’s look too at what the name Harper is doing over the years: there’s a difference between a name that’s holding steady at and a name that is widening the gap.

2012: 7154 F, 414 M
2011: 4658 F, 400 M
2010: 2626 F, 341 M
2009: 1901 F, 316 M
2008: 1126 F, 247 M
2007: 727 F, 231 M
2006: 597 F, 195 M
2005: 361 F, 139 M
2004: 274 F, 77 M
2003: 200 F, 72 M
2002: 164 F, 73 M
2001: 176 F, 58 M
2000: 135 F, 47 M
1999: 112 F, 44 M
1998: 93 F, 39 M

From 1998 and 2012, Harper became 10 times more popular for boys and 76 times more popular for girls. In 1998, there were 2-and-a-half times more girls named Harper than boys; in 2012, there were 17 times more girls named Harper than boys. This is not a uniform growth pattern we’re seeing here. If you were asking me about the future of the name Harper, I would tell you that in the United States, it looks to me like the decision is Girl. There was a time of uncertainty (Harper Lee is a woman; occupational names are more often used for boys; musical names are more often used for girls), and perhaps the name will continue to be used sometimes for boys, but this doesn’t look to me like the growth chart of a name like Cameron.

But that’s not what you’re asking me. You’re asking me if it’s okay to use a name for your son that is used mostly for girls in his country, and in fact is a very popular name for girls. And that’s not a question I can answer for you. The cultural bias against using “girl names” for boys (even though it continues to be appealing to use “boy names” for girls) comes from a very ugly concept, and it’s clearly unfair. Is there ANYTHING AT ALL wrong with being mistaken for a girl/woman? Goodness, no. Do many boys/men nevertheless find it embarrassing or difficult, for reasons we can’t turn our minds to without feeling surges of rage? That’s the difficult place, right there: the line between “SHOULD it be this way?” and “IS it this way?”

It sounds to me as if you’re not entirely comfortable with it, and that your husband is. Since he’s the one with the experience being a boy, I’d have some faith in his feelings. On the other hand, the name Harper was not used in his generation, which is going to affect the experiences producing those feelings. An equivalent from his own growing-up days (choosing a birth year for him in the hopes that it will be at least in the ballpark) would be the name Tracy: in 1985, it was given to 358 boys and 2653 girls. Or Shannon, which in 1985 was given to 689 boys and 7713 girls; or Courtney, which was given to 732 boys and 7534 girls that same year. If your husband imagines growing up as a Shannon or a Tracy or a Courtney, that will give him an approximate feeling for how it would be to grow up now as a Harper.

If you do name your son Harper, I suggest giving him a non-quirky and mostly-for-boys name as the middle name. Not only will this help with paperwork and avoid some of the confusion before it starts, it gives him something to fall back on if the name Harper does end up more Ashley than Taylor.

Shannon writes:

As someone who loves thinking and talking about baby names, I’ve been reading your site since long before I found out I was pregnant. I’m now due with our first child in a bit more than two months and we will not find out the baby’s sex before the birth. We settled on our most likely girl’s name without much trouble, but I’m really wrestling with a few issues associated with our top boy’s pick. Our current plan is for this baby (and the second child we hope for) to have two middle names, with my last name, which sounds like Scoreless with a C as the second one. The baby’s last name will be the same as my husband’s, which sounds like Diner but with a W (so, FirstName MiddleName Scoreless Diner). This means any full name will probably be a bit of a mouthful, but given what I imagine will be the infrequent verbalization of the full name, I’m not terribly concerned about it.

Though I’m convinced this baby will be a boy, should she turn out to be a girl we will likely use the first and middle names Delia Harlow. Both are family names on my side, and though I sort of wish Harlow weren’t climbing the charts so rapidly, I really like it in combination with Delia.

We run into a great deal more trouble when we get to names for a possible boy. Our top pick at the moment is Alden, and I have two main concerns:

1. It is but one letter away from the very popular Aiden. When said aloud I don’t imagine the two will get confused, but how likely is it that when written it will get mistaken for Aiden and [mis]corrected?

2. Ideally we’re looking for a name that is [relatively] uncommon, timeless (I want a name that was a name 100 years ago), and that will age well. In your opinion does Alden, given its “den” ending, fall into the large group of currently very popular/trendy boy’s names? I’d like to avoid someone in 30-40 years seeing his name and knowing immediately in what decade he was born.

Our other top option at the moment is Asa, which is another family name on my side. My concerns about Alden are not an issue here, but I’m having difficulty getting past the way it sounds with the baby’s last name. Though my husband is in fact Jewish by birth he’s far removed from that identity in his daily life, and he himself has a much more Christian-sounding first name. I wonder – and I am trying to say this as delicately as possible because it’s not an actual problem – about the ramifications of a child having a combination of names that sound (to my ear) very Jewish. Am I overthinking this? Does Asa again have secular connotations now the way it did 100 and 200 years ago?

Top middle name contenders are Barrett (for Alden) or Sullivan (for Asa). Other names we both like for the middle slot (but that don’t seem to work as well as the two I’ve just mentioned) are: Hayes, Heath, Holden, Penn and Flynn.

(Related question: does one of the two possible boy’s names sound like a better sibling name for a Delia?)

I really appreciate any opinions you and your readers are able to offer. My husband is of the opinion I’m overthinking all of this, which is entirely possible :)
Thanks in advance!

When I first read through your question, I read the first mention of Alden as Aiden. When I got to the part that said it was only one letter away from Aiden, I thought at first that the question was about Aidan vs. Aiden. I went back to the first mention of the name, and only then did I realize it was Alden. This is not a promising start, but was an excellent and vivid demonstration of the issue you’re describing.

My guess is that the huge popularity of Aidan/Aiden and the relatively low usage of Alden will indeed mean that Alden will frequently be mistaken for Aiden. I think it will be part of the package deal of the name: just as an Annabel needs to keep saying it’s two N’s and it’s -bel not -belle or -bella, and just as an Aidan needs to keep saying it’s -an not -en and Aidan not Hayden, an Alden will have to deal with people saying/writing Aiden. This doesn’t rule it out, any more than it rules out the names Annabel and Aidan. But it’s something that is good to think of ahead of time: every name has its downsides, and some of them will drive you more crazy than others.

I think the name may also be confused with Alton: celebrity chef Alton Brown was my first association with Alden, even though it’s not the same name. Using Alton instead of Alden might eliminate or reduce the Aiden confusion.

The -den ending doesn’t make it seem modern or trendy to me. The group of names I suspect you’re referring to is the -ayden names (Aidan, Braden, Caden, Grayden, Hayden, Jayden, etc.), and I think the long-A is important to being included in the group. Without the long-A, what we have is the category of -en names: popular, but such a broad category that they’re not as noticeable as a group. Not as dated, either: the -en category includes names such as Kristen and Jason from the 1970s, Susan and Karen from the 1950s, Stephen and Calvin from any old time, and Mason and Madison from the current top ten.

This doesn’t mean Alden couldn’t suddenly get more trendy/modern. Names such as Holden, Landon, and Camden are in style, and could become even more popular with time. In this case, however, I think they help the name Alden feel more usable and familiar. Also, the name Alden has been drifting in and out of the Top 1000 for centuries without ever getting higher than #427, while Camden and Holden are new to the list and rising rapidly.

My primary association with the name Asa is Asa Buchanan on the soap opera One Life to Live. I watched soap operas for only a brief time in my life (one college roommate watched them), and yet the association stuck.

The name Asa sounds completely secular to me: I wouldn’t make any religious assumptions about the family, any more than I do when I hear the name Noah.

If you would like my own personal opinion, I prefer the name Alden. It does have the Aiden issue, but when I look at the package deals, I prefer the package deal of Alden to the package deal of Asa. I also prefer the name Alden with the surname, and with Delia: I would prefer to avoid the repeated -a ending of Asa and Delia.

Name update!

Hi Swistle,

This naming update is terribly overdue and I’m sorry it has taken me so long to get back in touch. In the end, our daughter (daughter!) was born at the end of April. No one was more surprised than me (both by her sex, and the fact she arrived a few weeks early), and though some your commenters warned against it, we did in fact go with our first choice name pick for a girl: first name Delia, middle name Harlow, and are completely happy with our choice. I so appreciated the feedback on our potential boy names, though – especially the near-unaminous call to avoid Asa with our last name. Somehow the pitfalls of that combination hadn’t occurred to me, and it is now officially off the list should we be contemplating boy names at some point in the future. Thank goodness for such astute readers/commenters! Thanks again for posting my question, and for your help.

Best,
Shannon

C. writes:

We are considering using my husband’s grandfather’s name, Edward Lachlan Brenner for our second son due this May. From what I understand, this child would be considered a second…is this correct even though it skipped two generations AND we already had a first born son (Lucas James)?

I’m concerned it’s not acceptable since we already have a son and I worry as our first son gets older, he might feel he deserved this name instead (even though his middle name is after my FIL). In all honestly, we just didn’t consider the option the first time around!

What do you think??

While the suffix “Jr.” is given only to the son or daughter of the namesake, the suffix “II” is specifically intended for use by a grandchild, nephew/niece, etc., and so the number of generations in between is not an issue.

Your son’s own birth order is also unimportant: suffixes don’t require the holder of them to be the firstborn, and the explanation “We just didn’t think of it the first time!” is a good one. While it’s possible your firstborn will later wish he’d been given the name, my guess is that it won’t be an issue—or if it does come up, the explanation is a good one for him, too. The balance works well: only two of his three names match the honoree’s, but the honoree is a generation closer.

I’d suggest naming him for your husband’s grandfather without making him a II: the suffix is optional, and is mostly to help avoid confusion. If the namesake is three generations older and has a different address, I doubt there will be any confusion to avoid. And if you’re concerned others will think it’s inappropriate to use the honor name for a second son, not using the II will keep most people from even turning their minds to the issue.

W. writes:

My husband and I had our first child, a boy, at the end of the year and we named him John in honor of my grandfather. Also in honor of my grandfather we’re calling him Jack. There are just too many Johns on both sides of the family right now!

Whenever we introduce him to strangers, we just call him Jack, but to close acquaintances (co-workers that we see outside of work, friends and family) we say his name in John, but we call him Jack. This usually gets looks like we’ve grown a second head and didn’t realize it!

I know Jack is a traditional nickname for John, my husband and our families know this, but apparently other people in my generation (we’re both 30) don’t know this! Now all I can think of is when he goes to school having to explain ad nauseum to his teachers that yes, Jack really is a nickname for John and that’s what he goes by. Do you have any ideas on how to mitigate that explanation? I’ve tried looking it up online the reason why it became a nickname, but I think that just confuses things even more.

I love his full given name and I love how Jack flows with our last name (two syllables, and ends in a “ck”). Furthermore we’ve been calling him Jack since we found out we were having a boy, so ditching the nickname is not an option.

I know that not everyone is familiar with Daisy as a nickname for Margaret or with Polly as a nickname for Mary, but I thought Jack as a nickname for John was at least WIDELY known if not by every single person. Your letter is giving me pause. I think there are several possible explanations:

1. You happen, just by coincidence, to have a group of friends and co-workers who are all oblivious to this traditional nickname.

2. You’re interpreting the looks you’re getting as looks of not knowing Jack is a nickname for John, but your interpretation is incorrect.

3. I’m wrong about the general familiarity of the John/Jack connection.

If the situation is #1 (“coincidentally, your group doesn’t know”), then this will be a fast fix: you have already spread the word that his name is John and his nickname is Jack, so you’re done with your part unless someone openly remarks about it. If any of them think it’s truly weird, they will tell someone they know about it, and the person they tell will say, “Um…Jack is a traditional nickname for John,” and then they will feel kind of silly for a moment.

If the situation is #2 (“you’re misinterpreting the looks on faces”), then this will be a fast fix: There is no problem to fix. Maybe they are looking surprised because they don’t expect the name John (it’s common in older generations, but a fresh surprise on current babies), or because they wonder why you didn’t just go straight to Jack, or because they’re surprised you’d use the name John when there are so many men named John in your family, or because they were sure you were going to use a different name for some reason, or because John and/or Jack is their own choice for a future baby and now they don’t know what to do, or because they don’t know how they’re supposed to react when they hear a baby’s name (“What a great name!”). We don’t really know WHAT that face says, unless they combine it with some words. If you tell someone new and they give you that look, you can say, “Oh, hadn’t you heard of that nickname before?” if you like. That gives them the option of giving an alternate explanation for their face, though personally I don’t think I’d want to invite them to say it: they may need work on facial expressions, but they’re doing the right thing by keeping their opinions to themselves.

If the situation is #3 (“I’m wrong about how familiar people are with John/Jack”), then this will be a longer fix but still a fast one. The “longer” element is that it will occur again and again throughout his life—up to once per school year when he tells his teacher, and up to once per new acquaintance. The “fast” element is that you/he will say that the name is John and the nickname is Jack, and then you will wait for someone to make the funny look that shows they didn’t know this, and then life will continue as usual. Either someone will ask about it, in which case you’ll say in the gentle and kind voice we use when we’ve accidentally uncovered a knowledge gap in someone else and don’t want them to feel bad about it, “Oh! Er, Jack is the traditional nickname for John” (if you’re in the U.S., you can add “you know—like JFK”), or else they won’t ask about it and you have no work to do. At that point, they will either not care and never give it another thought, or they will look into it further and find that you are right. Either way: no work for you to do.

It’s hard to imagine anyone going on and on about it and needing to have it repeatedly explained to them, but such people DO exist (“I just can’t get over you using a BOY NAME for your daughter, hur hur hur!”). If such a person DOES enter your life and DOES persist in acting all confused again and again, you can bring in a name book or direct them to Wikipedia, and/or you can conclude that they’re one of those jerks who acts confused in an attempt to make you feel stupid/crazy/wrong. You can start responding with things like, “Yep, nicknames are strange, that’s for sure! Bob for Robert, Jim for James, Chuck for Charles. I’ve never understood how Meg got to be a nickname for Margaret, either” if you like, or you can start shrugging and saying, “Well, anyway, that’s his name” before changing the subject. But it doesn’t sound like this is happening to you right now.

An additional idea is to look up some celebrities named Jack, and see if any of them are named John. Jack Nicholson’s given name is John, for example, and so is Jack White’s. This can be incorporated into your “further chatty remarks” arsenal, along with things like, “Yep, nicknames are odd, aren’t they!” and “And did you know Polly was originally a nickname for Mary? Neat, huh?” and “That was my grandfather’s name/nickname, too.”

S. writes:

My husband and I need help naming our boy/girl twins due in June. We already have a daughter named Avery Elizabeth (nn Ave), and I would like to give our twins names that began with a vowel as well. Our surname sounds like “Bame”; and I would prefer to have first names that begin with more than one syllable. I like unusual or trendy names, while my husband prefers more traditional names.

We have agreed on a girl’s name (Olivia Jean nn Liv) but are unable to agree on a boy’s name that would go well with Olivia and Avery.

We have vetoed the following boys names:
Allistair
Asher (husband dislikes)
Evan
Ethan
Oliver
Owen
Ian
Aaron (too normal)
Adam
Andrew
Everett (husband dislikes)
Emmett (husband dislikes)

Please help! Do we need to select a boys name that begins with a vowel, or would a name that begins with a consonant be ok?

This is an excellent example of when it’s time to drop a preference: you’d prefer to use a boy name starting with a vowel, but you don’t like any of the boy names starting with vowels. That’s exactly where I’d brush off my hands briskly and say, “Well, this would have been our ideal, but I guess it’s not going to work out.”

And in fact, I have brushed off my hands briskly in a similar situation: when I was expecting boy/girl twins, my preference would have been to have something twinny about their names: a shared initial, a shared number of letters or syllables, swapped first/middle initials, a strong shared sound—something like that. As I made list after list, it gradually emerged that in order to do that, we would need to choose one name we liked and one name we would never have chosen except to meet the preference. That trade wasn’t worth it to me, so I dropped the preference. (Giving them matching initials for their blog pseudonyms was fun.)

We’ve had the “Do we have to keep going with vowel names?” question come up on the blog a couple of times before; the general consensus has been that it’s not the kind of theme people notice—or if they happen to notice, it’s not the kind of thing they think is a big deal. If you had five children all with vowel names or all with the initial C. and you wanted to leave one twin out, it would be another matter; after only one vowel name, adding one vowel name (a different vowel) and one consonant name seems unnoticeable. For anyone who DID notice, the way I’d spin it is that you like vowel names for girls. Perhaps the twins could have something else in common—the swapped first/middle initials idea, for example, or a strong shared sound (Olivia and Noah, Olivia and Leo).

Theresa writes:

Hello! I’m hoping you can help. My baby boy is scheduled for delivery march 12 and my husband and I are having the hardest time with a name! Our last name is like mouse but with an h. This makes it difficult because of any connotations or imagery involved. (Dustin could be shortened to Dusty _ouse)

Our daughters name is Norah. We fell in love with it right away. We love that it is not too popular and has a charming traditional yet modern appeal. I thought this baby boys name would be loved the same way, but it’s just not clicking. I’ve scoured the internet and baby books, but I’m just not falling in love.

We are looking for a name with at least two syllables. I don’t want anything too popular or trendy. We are hoping for something unique and meaningful but not weird. We are both very inspired by nature, art, and music. We also don’t want something with a nickname. We want his name to be what we all call him. (Ex. Leo not Leonard just to call him Leo)

Our top runner and back up name is Evan. I like how it sounds with Norah. But I feel like it could be more interesting and stand out more.
My name is Theresa, my husband is David. We don’t have a desire to work in a family name or have a religious connection.

Some of our choices in the process have been:

Everett: I like this one, husband doesn’t. This is how we evolved to Evan.

Wren: love this name for many reasons. But can’t use it with the last name association. Probably will be the middle name. Evan Wren

Forrest: similar to wren

Leo: we like this one but feel like it seems more appropriate for a young boy, not an older man

Micah: another family member just used it

Miles: friend just used it

Cyrus: not sure about the double s sounds

Sawyer: s sound

Harrison: don’t really like the h and h

Other names we kind of like but have ruled out for various reasons:
Hunter
Asher
Heron
Ryder
Sterling
Ranger
Turner
Tyler
Flint
Cypress
Oscar
Oliver

If you have a moment to reflect in the next couple weeks, we would love to hear some outside advice. Thanks for your time!