History of Elizabeth as a boys name??

Question

I was recently viewing the SSA's website, and looking for uncommon names from 1908 - I came across Elizabeth in the boys column. I tried a quick google search on boys named Elizabeth, but came up with nothing.

Can anybody tell me anything about the history of Elizabeth as a boy's name? What about any other names that would NOT be thought of as a male name, but were/are commonly used as such?

Thanks!!

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/

Answer 1

You bring up an interesting point. Actually, if you look at the SSA list from 1900, you'll find a bunch of girls' names toward the bottom (and middle) of the boys' column. It's because 1900 was before the time that certain names were delegated into "boy only" and "girl only" categories.

Here's a website where you can look up a name and see a graph of how common it was for boys and how common it was for girls over the past 100+ years:

http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com...

It's interesting to see that even names like "Lucy" were once used on boys!

Answer 2

Thank God times have changed, haha. Not sure if I could bring myself to call a man "Elizabeth". I would have never guessed it would have even been used for males. I always associate it with royalty, very feminine.

Answer 3

Elizabeth has never been a male name. Quite common in Europe is men having "Maria" as their middle name, it is an expression of how their parents adored the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus.

Answer 4

Ashley and Jan are two female names that used to be male names.  Also Marion.

Answer 5

When looking over the SSA site, I could see no evidence that it was only FIRST names.   Therefore, they could be middle names.    If that's the case, they may use Elizabeth to honor a mother/grandmother or even the Queen if they come from a country somewhere in the commonwealth.

Answer 6

I think this is probably mostly due to inaccuracies in the birth registers. These records are pretty old and I've seen "Baby" and other female names listed in the boys' column before. (can't remember where, but I could swear I even once read that this the reason for most male and female names listed in the wrong column)

Especially Elizabeth would probably not have been used on a boy, given its centuries old history (various Queens etc.).

eta: These have to be errors in the records. I mean look at your stats. Do you really think that in 1989 (!) someone would name their son Elizabeth?