View Message

[Opinions] Rachel
What do you think of Rachel?Is it dated?Do you know many? Was it very common where you live?Do you also like Rachael?
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

I love it. I think it sounds soft and pretty. I don't find it dated, but I do know quite a few. It's a pretty standard white suburban name.I like Rachael too, but I prefer Rachel because it's simpler and it's how everyone is going to assume it's spelt.
vote up1
It honestly sounds dated to me, but it is a pretty Biblical names.
vote up1
Yeah, a little dated, about like Jessica. It was one of the most common names when I was growing up in California (people born in the 70s), not as common as Christi-names or Jennifer, about as common as Michelle or Kimberly. I had a neighbor Rachael, and a friend Rachel. It's a nice name, I get an image of spiraling vines or curls, for some reason... it's just a graceful sound I guess.I think I slightly prefer Rachel because it's more frequent, and looks like it sounds. I kinda want to say Rachael as Ra-kyle or ra-ky-EL. Because it looks like Raphael and Michael. But I like the way the letters in Rachael look too. Looks less basic. Either way it's not really my style, so not a favorite.

This message was edited 7/16/2018, 10:10 AM

vote up1
I like it, a lot.I can't tell if it's dated, or not. It's a classic, biblical name, so maybe not? But, I'm sure people would assume a Rachel was born in the 80's, or 90's, so don't listen to me.I am one, and I have met maybe four, or five other Rachels, in my life.I like Rachael. That's the way I spell it. :)
vote up1
Rachel is my preferred spelling because it's the most intuitive. I wouldn't want to spend my whole life saying 'No, not Rachel, R-a-c-h-a-e-l' on the phone.
I don't think it's dated. It's in constant use.I think I've known about 6 Rachel's? All between 50 and 18.
vote up1
I like it a lot. I wouldn't call it dated: it's a classic and it's consistently in use, but in a cyclical way. Here it's coming down from a peak of top 100 use between the 1960s and 2008, after last making the top 100 in the 1900s. It's still at 263 though, and I think it will stay around.It was a passed-down name in my family for several generations: the first one was born in 1811. She's Rachael in some of her data, and so is one of the two Rach(a)els I know. I'd choose the simpler form if I were using it, but Rachael as a variant has a long history, and I think it's fine.
vote up1
I prefer Rachael. It's never been popular at all where I live, at least not in English. In Afrikaans, pronounced RRAH-CHel, it's more frequent.Good name; biblical but not aggressively so; sounds pretty. Only problem is that it shortens to Ray, which I deplore, though others here have said this doesn't happen in the US.
vote up1
I've known Rachels in Canada who used the nn Ray. It's not automatic, but it is common enough.
vote up1
Rachel doesn't become Ray in the UK either. Every Rachel I have ever known has been Rachel or Rach.
vote up1