Those same old names

I was reading an article on the BBC website entitled 'Does a baby's name affect its chances in life?' Nothing really to do with family history, but quite interesting. Then I came across a statement
"Before 1800, ...... four first names referred to half of all English men." While the article doesn't identify which names they were, I bet we all have our suspicions.

 

Tim, surely you are referring to my husband's family!

 

Well that would have made my research somewhat easier. I would imagine that there are far fewer Adam Smiths' than John Smiths'! And try researching Mary Smith, daughter of William - Eve would be much easier!

 

Nobody has mentioned mere females but overall Elizabeth, Mary and Ann would rate first place on my tree. William outranks John, Thomas and James. When I looked back even pre 1850 I was surprised at the diversity of names so thank you Liberty for encouraging me to look at my tree from a fresh perspective. Incidentally my Smiths either stayed put or married people with much more unusual last names so I have learned not to grow apprehensive when the name shows up.

 

What about his 'cousin' Newcastle Brown?

 

Changing the flavour, I have a huge number of John Wests in my tree (and a lot of them were fishermen...)

 

If anyone is really interested, you might like to check out the Given Name Frequency Project. I think it's all a bit to scholarly to just list the popular names, but the link to an article on long term trends, seems to suggests that James may not have have been one of the Top Four. My own family tree features Robert quite highly, and that, like James, is certainly one of the runners-up. And you are spot on as regards the medal winners.