You seem to be implying that there is a huge demographic shift when the reality is that, just as was common in the UK 100 years ago, in the Muslim population men get one of 5 names and 4 of them are Mohammed.
The UK via colonialism has deep connections to India and Pakistan going back hundreds of years. We have a very significant population from the Indian subcontinent plus many other people from all over. London is more diverse than New York.
Meanwhile John isn’t in the top 100 male names. Not because of a lack of “white” people, but because people now prioritize “uniqueness” in names and in the UK fashions move much faster than they do in the US.
Lyra is popular because of the Phillip Pullman books which most people haven’t read and is a name they know because a pop star used it for their daughter. Noah is popular because of a pop song from the early 2000s. Alfie is tied to a classic Michael Caine movie, a couple of celebrities, and yet another pop song. 40 years ago these names were unheard of.
On top of that despite being a Christian country, people in the UK shun most Old Testament biblical names bar those which have been anglicized by time and royalty. No Ezekiel’s or Methuselahs here.
> The US list also favors a newer wave of ancient biblical names that only gained real traction in recent decades, giving them a more modern feel despite their centuries of history. Levi, Asher, Ezra, Josiah, Ezekiel, Silas, Adriel and Micah all rank in the American top 100 for boys. Some of these revivals are shared favorites, including Noah, Elijah, Isaac, Caleb and Ezra, and Delilah and Eden for girls.
From the article, plus the two UK biblical names Jude and Reuben. For the UK, I think most of these are second-order, if that is the right way to describe appreciating a name without using it for the same reason as the parents being copied.
It's the same everywhere: parents trying to force things through that they know kids won't like ... both when it comes to changing their behavior and making a separate group from others.
Sorry to be the guy on HN complaining about scrolljacking on the article, but this has to be one of the worst I’ve seen. Text is cut off near the bottom of the description, but if I scroll down to see it, it jumps to the next “slide” and I am unable to read it :(
what surprises and annoys me is Briton's willingness to name their children shortened versions of existing names, it's lazy, so many Archies and Alfies, ugh.
The hot path goes: parents choose "long" version of name. Everyone calls them the "short" name. The short name is their name for the majority of life. They have to deal with administrative-type friction and confusion every time their long name is needed. Therefore, you make their life less frustrating by making their inevitable shorter name equal to their real name.
thus reducing their agency, it'll be interesting at least to see if this generation grows up to prefer a lengthened name (or "long name") equivalent to todays "short name". For a period my parents called me Jim, a name I despise as an adult, thankfully the root of that short name has many branches, not that it matters because I only use the initial.
Yeah, I'm surprised. I'd always assumed that people would use the full form on the birth certificate even if the child was never actually called that in practice.
Doesn't really matter, I suppose - names are pretty arbitrary anyway and I can't imagine the sort of pain that would be involved in trying to force-canonicalise Jack->John, Leo->Leonard, Theo->Theodore (or Theobald?). Even the French don't do that any more!
