New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Grain of salt on Guinness Book of Names lists for 1700 and 1800
in reply to a message by Anneza
Unfortunately there is a problem with these lists. If you will look at them closely, you will see that both the male and female lists contain EXACTLY the same 50 names, in different order, for both 1700 and 1800. Although name fashions didn't change as much back then as they do today, it really is impossible that the top 50 names for both sexes in 1700 and 1800 were exactly the same.
Through correspondence with Leslie Dunkling years ago, I discovered that the person who had originally collected the data for these lists did it in a very curious way. He counted up the total number of people with the names in his entire data set and created top 50s, and then he went back and ordered those 50 names in regard to their popularity in the separate years of 1700 and 1800. Dunkling did not know this until after the book was already published.
Probably the first 30 or so names on each of these lists are fairly accurate. But there probably are a lot of inaccuracies on the last half of the lists, and names which should be on them which are missing because of the odd way they were originally reported.
Through correspondence with Leslie Dunkling years ago, I discovered that the person who had originally collected the data for these lists did it in a very curious way. He counted up the total number of people with the names in his entire data set and created top 50s, and then he went back and ordered those 50 names in regard to their popularity in the separate years of 1700 and 1800. Dunkling did not know this until after the book was already published.
Probably the first 30 or so names on each of these lists are fairly accurate. But there probably are a lot of inaccuracies on the last half of the lists, and names which should be on them which are missing because of the odd way they were originally reported.
3
Replies
Oh that's very irritating! Do you know of any more accurate data?
1
There probably are people working in the field; if I had time on my hands, I'd go to the FreeBMD website and try going through all the Smith babies born in ... Nottingham probably rather than London, in the first quarter of the earliest year they have. Which isn't very early: early 19th century I think. But should give some kind of overview.
If you were to find an Onomastics Society or something like one, that'd be an excellent way in. Here in South Africa, most of the work is being done on geographical names since we don't make any baby name statistics available - don't calculate them in the first place, in fact. The Civil Service always says it's going to, but hasn't yet - grrr!
If you were to find an Onomastics Society or something like one, that'd be an excellent way in. Here in South Africa, most of the work is being done on geographical names since we don't make any baby name statistics available - don't calculate them in the first place, in fact. The Civil Service always says it's going to, but hasn't yet - grrr!
1
That is absolutely fascinating, and I'm delighted to know it - thank you! - but very puzzled about the weird workings of the human mind sometimes.
Was this mysterious data-collector using church records, do you know? And were they local, or centralised? Because 'his entire data set' would probably be very different if he only used, say, names from Cornwall or Durham rather than London or even Birmingham.
Was this mysterious data-collector using church records, do you know? And were they local, or centralised? Because 'his entire data set' would probably be very different if he only used, say, names from Cornwall or Durham rather than London or even Birmingham.
1
He was using church baptismal records in England, but unfortunately I don't remember how geographically varied his sample was.
1