A century is the natural unit of baby-name fashion. Most names that were ubiquitous in 1926 are gone today; a few are right back at the top. We pulled every name that finished in the US top 100 in 1926 and split them into two piles.
Still strong — top-100 names from 1926 that are also in the modern top 100
Boys:
| Name | 1926 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| Theodore | #63 | #4 |
| James | #3 | #5 |
| Henry | #19 | #6 |
| William | #4 | #10 |
| Benjamin | #98 | #11 |
| Jack | #16 | #15 |
| Daniel | #46 | #16 |
| Samuel | #48 | #17 |
| Michael | #56 | #18 |
| John | #2 | #21 |
| Leo | #54 | #24 |
| David | #22 | #31 |
| Joseph | #8 | #32 |
| Thomas | #11 | #39 |
| Anthony | #42 | #44 |
| Charles | #5 | #51 |
| Andrew | #59 | #68 |
| Robert | #1 | #90 |
Girls:
| Name | 1926 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| Emma | #59 | #2 |
| Charlotte | #78 | #4 |
| Evelyn | #13 | #8 |
| Eleanor | #32 | #14 |
| Violet | #94 | #15 |
| Elizabeth | #11 | #17 |
| Hazel | #48 | #19 |
| Ella | #98 | #30 |
| Grace | #46 | #40 |
| Lillian | #28 | #54 |
| Josephine | #37 | #56 |
| Alice | #17 | #62 |
| Ruby | #30 | #63 |
| Vivian | #80 | #77 |
| Clara | #61 | #78 |
| Audrey | #60 | #82 |
| Anna | #15 | #94 |
| Sarah | #63 | #95 |
Eighteen names per side — a remarkable amount of continuity. Five of the 1926 girls' top 20 (Emma, Charlotte, Evelyn, Eleanor, Violet) are now in the modern top 20.
Forgotten — top-100 names from 1926 that have effectively disappeared
Boys (1926 rank → 2024 rank):
- Bill #74 → #4,572
- Willard #100 → #3,034
- Herman #69 → #2,641
- Herbert #44 → #2,482
- Floyd #53 → #2,169
- Earl #32 → #2,152
- Gene #91 → #1,905
- Don #96 → #1,789
- Lloyd #60 → #1,766
- Fred #31 → #1,686
Girls:
- Phyllis #33 → unranked in 2024
- Bessie #89 → unranked
- Wanda #66 → unranked
- Ethel #41 → #4,915
- Bertha #76 → #4,775
- Gertrude #71 → #4,683
- Thelma #36 → #4,446
- Wilma #67 → #4,100
- Bernice #45 → #3,821
- Pauline #39 → #3,475
What 1926 America looked like
The United States of 1926 was in the middle of the Roaring Twenties — the most economically prosperous period in American history to that point. The stock market was booming, the automobile was transforming American life, and radio broadcasting had reached nearly every home. Al Capone was running Chicago. Calvin Coolidge was president. Ernest Hemingway published The Sun Also Rises.
But the cultural world that produced those names was in many ways more traditional than the boom-era optimism suggested. Most American families were still naming children within the constraints of religious tradition (biblical and saints' names dominated), family continuity (naming for grandparents and great-grandparents was standard), and community norms (names that stood out too much were avoided).
The immigrant experience was also shaping naming patterns dramatically. The Immigration Act of 1924 had sharply curtailed immigration, but the families of the previous great wave (1880–1924) were now second-generation Americans navigating between their heritage and assimilation. Many were choosing names that could pass for Anglo-American — Robert instead of Roberto, Elizabeth instead of Elisabetta — while keeping the European roots visible.
Which 1926 names have fully revived
The clearest revival stories from the 1926 list:
Emma — the most dramatic single reversal in naming history. Emma was #59 in 1926, fell to #458 in its 1976 low, and is now #2 in the US. This trajectory of fall-and-return is the textbook 100-year rule in action.
Theodore — from #63 in 1926 to an all-time low in the mid-century (below #200 by the 1960s) and back to #4 today. Theodore Roosevelt was the most recent president with this name; his era is now distant enough that the name reads as grand rather than dated.
Charlotte — from #78 in 1926 to #4 today, with a long mid-century dip. Helped enormously by royal associations (Princess Charlotte) and the broader vintage girls' name trend.
Violet — from #94 in 1926 to a near-disappearance (below #700) in the 1990s, and now #15. The revival was steep and continues.
Eleanor — from #32 in 1926, associated with Eleanor Roosevelt through most of the century (which kept it from feeling fresh), and now #14 as that association fades into romantic historical distance.
Which 1926 names are still rare but coming back
Some 1926 names haven't fully returned but are showing early signs:
Edith — was #79 in 1926, fell below #600 in the 1990s, now around #300 and climbing. A name that still carries some mid-century weight but is crossing into charming territory.
Mildred — the short form Millie is at around #200 and rising. Mildred itself remains below #4,000, but nickname-led revivals often precede the full-name revival.
Florence — was top-60 in 1926, fell to obscurity, and is now back around #325, aided by Florence + the Machine and the city's cultural cache.
Walter — a boys' name from the 1926 top 15 that is now around #340, climbing slowly. The vintage-male revival that brought back Theodore and Henry hasn't fully reached Walter yet.
Clarence — It's a Wonderful Life's angel Clarence keeps this in cultural memory; it's below #700 but the trajectory is slightly upward.
So what crosses the century gap?
The names that survived a hundred years share a few traits:
- Biblical or saintly roots. James, John, Joseph, Daniel, Samuel, Benjamin, Anna, Elizabeth, Sarah. These bounce around the top 100 every century.
- Easy sounds, no awkward consonants. Emma, Evelyn, Grace, Theodore, Leo. The names with hard mid-word consonant clusters (Bertha, Gertrude, Willard) didn't make it.
- They feel "old" in a romantic rather than dated way. Hazel and Violet are old-fashioned but evocative; Ethel and Phyllis are old-fashioned and tired. The line between the two is mostly sound — vowel-rich vs. consonant-heavy.
The 1926 chart was Robert and Mary at #1. Robert is now #90, Mary #132. They haven't disappeared — but if you'd told a 1926 parent that Emma and Theodore would top the 2024 chart, they'd have raised an eyebrow. Fashion comes back, but never to exactly the same place.
Frequently asked questions
Why did some names like Fred and Earl disappear completely while James and John survived? James and John have multiple cultural supports — they're deeply embedded in the English Bible, they're associated with countless historical figures across centuries, and they remain internationally recognizable. Fred is primarily 20th-century American; Earl is primarily an English aristocratic title used as a given name, without the biblical depth that protects James. When a name lacks that layered support, it's much more vulnerable to generational fashion.
Could Earl or Fred ever come back? Earl has a specific problem — it's also a title of rank (between Duke and Baron) which makes it feel presumptuous in a way that James or Theodore doesn't. Fred is more plausible: it's short, clean, and has the same phonetic profile as other reviving single-syllable names (Ted/Theodore, Ben/Benjamin, Will/William). Fred stands at around #1,686 — too rare to feel inevitable, but not impossible. The revival of its full form Frederick (#288) might eventually pull Fred along.
Why does the 100-year rule work? The 100-year gap is roughly three generations. At 100 years, the people who were children when the name was common have died, meaning the name no longer calls up a specific face — a grandmother, a neighbor, a teacher. It becomes abstract, historical, and available again. At 50 years, the name still calls up living memory (your parent's generation's name feels dated, not vintage). At 75 years, it's in the awkward zone — too recent to be charming, too old to be fresh.
Which 2024 names will be forgotten by 2124? The names most at risk are the ones without deep cultural roots: invented names, brand-derived names, and names strongly tied to a specific era. The K-spelling names (Karson, Kameron, Kyler) are the current equivalent of the 1920s's Gene and Don — popular for a moment, built on trends rather than tradition. The biblical names (Levi, Ezra, Asher) will probably still be in the top 100 in 2124.
For the broader vintage angle, see our 1920s comeback post, or browse the 1920s decade page directly.
Data: U.S. Social Security Administration 1926 and 2024 releases. "Unranked" means fewer than five US births that year — the SSA's privacy cutoff.