View Message

I wouldn't personally use it, I don't think, but it's definitely a name that immediately sounds "strong." It's a name for parents who don't want something too "pretty" for their daughter, but at the same time don't just want to take a name traditionally used for boys and smack it on their daughter and call it a day.

---

Of the two spellings, despite it going against most of my naming philosophy I actually prefer Rachael to the traditional Rachel (which to me looks like it's missing something). That said, I prefer Raquel to both.

Where I live, Rachel has a guttural ch, as in 'loch' but more so, and the a sounds like Rah, not Ray. Which means that if I were to consider it for a daughter, I'd only consider the Rachael spelling. Except I wouldn't, because the only English-speaking Rachael people I've ever known all went by Ray. So, since I do like the name, I'd keep it as a mn only.

I like it! I prefer Rachel as a spelling.

I think the name is pretty. Rachel is the more traditional version of it, that I'd be more likely to use. Rachael seems like a more modernized version of the name, I'm not sure I like it as much. Also, it could be pronounced as Rachel, Ra-ka-el or something else entirely. Which is nice if you don't like how Rachel sounds. Or confusing, if you want other people not to get the pronunciation confused.

It's a nice name but it's definitely not one I would ever use or even consider because of the unpleasant associations that I have with it and the fact that I don't like it nearly enough.
Spelling wise I prefer Rachel. Rachael just doesn't look as visually pleasant. A random 'A' tossed in the back to look like 'Michael' just doesn't appeal to me. It looks unnatural and unnecessary.

I like Rachel, it's sweet

I like Rachel, but Rachael is hideous. The spelling makes me want to pronounce it RIE-kəl, to rhyme with Michael. I wouldn't use it.