If you look at the top 20 girls names for 2023, which I posted the other day, there is only one name on there obviously derived from a common surname, Harper at number 11 (the name peaked in 2018 at 5.7 per 1000 girls born). There have been some smash hits for girls that came from surnames, like Taylor and Madison — and especially Ashley, if you count her even though that was never a common surname in the US. Where are they now?
Anyway, I noticed the name Taylor has not apparently gotten much of a bounce from the celebrity named Taylor, which puzzled me a little, and it occurred to me I was seeing fewer surnames for girls. So I gathered a list of 22 surnames given to girls, picking ones that looked familiar from lists like this and this (let me know if you think I’m missing any big ones). Here are those names, from the powerhouse Ashley down to lowly Winslet, shown with stats from their peak year. Note that none peaked in 2024, and the ones with recent peaks, like Tatum and Winslet (both 2023) aren’t very popular.
If you combine those 22 names and show the trend, it peaks in 2016 at 36.4 girls per 1000 born.
And if you break out the top 12, it really looks like the fad is past its prime. Never say never, but for the moment it appears giving girls surnames as first names is on the decline.
There may be a phonetic element to this, having to do with the decline of “ee” (Ashley) and “er” (Taylor) endings, and the rise of “ah” (Ava, Olivia) endings. But that’s not my expertise.
Data and code for this project is here: https://osf.io/m48qc/.
Family Inequality 
Place names too seem to be on the decline. Chelsea peaked in 1992 (she had a very sharp rise and fall), Savannah and Cheyenne around 2000, Brooklyn in 2010. Dakota and Siena, though less popular, have not fallen; they’ve held on for the last fifteen years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Do they publish the demographic characteristics other than sex by name?
LikeLike
Nope! That would make it too easy
LikeLike