New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Brooke
in reply to a message by Ludwig
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!
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
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
1
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.
1