You probably think names of the 1600s were all about serious, dour Puritans named Patience or Increase. It’s a common trope. We see it in movies and historical dramas where everyone sounds like they just stepped out of a courtroom or a strictly religious sermon. Honestly, that’s only a tiny slice of the pie. The reality of 17th-century naming conventions is a chaotic, fascinating mess of transitioning languages, political upheaval, and weird family traditions.
Names back then weren't just labels. They were survival tools. They signaled your loyalty to the Crown, your religious fervor, or even your status as an outsider in a rapidly expanding world.
The Massive Shift Away from Medieval Traditions
The start of the 1600s was a tipping point. Before this, you had a handful of names that basically everyone used. If you walked into a tavern in London in 1550 and yelled "John," half the room would look up. But by the middle of the 1600s, things started to fracture.
Parents were feeling more adventurous, though their "adventure" was usually rooted in the Bible. The Protestant Reformation had already kicked the door down, but it was the 17th century that really leaned into the Old Testament. People started ditching the traditional "Saint" names—which felt a bit too Catholic for some—in favor of names that felt more "pure." This is where we get the surge in names like Abraham, Isaac, and Samuel.
It wasn't just about religion, though. It was about literacy. As more people learned to read, they had access to more texts. They weren't just looking at the New Testament anymore. They were digging into the deep, often dark, genealogies of the Old Testament. Suddenly, names of the 1600s like Mehetabel or Jedidiah started showing up in parish registers from rural Sussex to the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Why the "Virtue Name" Myth is Only Half True
We’ve all heard of the "Praise-God Barebone" types. Those virtue names—Silence, Humility, Prudence, Tribulation—are the stuff of legend. You might think every kid in 1640 was named something like "Fly-Fornication" or "Through-Much-Tribulation-We-Enter-The-Kingdom-Of-Heaven."
Believe it or not, those wild, multi-word names were actually pretty rare. They existed, sure. Historians like Nicholas Tyacke have documented them. But they were the exception, not the rule. Most parents, even the devout ones, stuck to single-word virtues. Grace. Faith. Hope. These have stayed with us for four hundred years because they’re actually quite beautiful.
But what about the "dark" virtue names? Humiliation was a real name given to boys. So was Repentance. To a modern ear, that sounds like child abuse. To a 17th-century parent, it was a way to instill a sense of place and spiritual duty from day one. It was a constant reminder of the child's relationship with the divine. Sorta heavy for a toddler, right?
The Surname-as-First-Name Trend Started Earlier Than You Think
If you think naming your kid "Jackson" or "Harrison" is a modern trend, think again. The 1600s saw a massive spike in using surnames as given names. This was especially common among the gentry and the rising middle class.
🔗 Read more: Why Everyone Is Still Obsessing Over Maybelline SuperStay Skin Tint
Why? Because it was about property and inheritance.
If a woman came from a family with a lot of land but no male heirs, she might give her maiden name to her firstborn son. It kept the family name alive in a legal and social sense. Names like Dudley, Sidney, and Cecil—which we think of as classic first names today—actually started their lives as surnames of powerful families. By the mid-1600s, this was a standard way to signal your connections. It was the 17th-century version of a LinkedIn profile.
It also helped distinguish between the endless sea of Johns and Marys. If you were "Wentworth Miller" (to use a modern example of an old name type) instead of just "John Miller," people knew exactly which branch of the family you belonged to.
Common Names for Men and Women: The Real List
Despite the weird outliers, the top of the charts remained fairly consistent. If you’re looking at archival data from the 1600s, you’ll see the same names appearing with staggering frequency.
For men, John, William, and Thomas held about 50% of the market share for most of the century. It’s almost boring. But beneath them, you have the rise of Richard, Robert, and Edward. Interestingly, the name Charles saw a massive surge and then a sharp decline depending on which way the political wind was blowing. If you named your kid Charles during the reign of Charles I, you were a loyalist. If you did it during the Interregnum when Oliver Cromwell was in charge? That was a political statement.
For women, Mary, Elizabeth, and Anne were the heavy hitters. But there was more variety in female names than male names. Why? Because women couldn't inherit land or titles in the same way, so there was less pressure to use "ancestor names." This gave parents more freedom. We see a lot of names like Alice, Margaret, Dorothy, and the increasingly popular Sarah and Rebecca.
Regional Quirks: From Cornwall to the New World
Geography changed everything. If you were in Cornwall, you might still see traces of Celtic names that looked nothing like the names in London. If you were in the north of England, Scandinavian influences still lingered in how names were shortened or nicknamed.
Then you have the American colonies. This is where names of the 1600s got really interesting.
💡 You might also like: Coach Bag Animal Print: Why These Wild Patterns Actually Work as Neutrals
The people who hopped on ships to Virginia or Massachusetts were often looking for a fresh start. In New England, the Puritan influence was condensed and intensified. This is where you find the highest concentration of those biblical and virtue names. Meanwhile, in Virginia, the naming patterns stayed a bit more "Old World," reflecting the Anglican, cavalier roots of the settlers. They stuck to the classics—George, Henry, Jane—maintaining a link to the English aristocracy they admired.
The Nickname Culture You Didn't Know Existed
Think nicknames like "Dick" for Richard or "Bill" for William are recent? Not even close. The 1600s had a robust and often confusing nickname culture.
Some of them make sense. Will for William. Tom for Thomas.
Some are weird.
- Palsgrave was sometimes used as a name.
- Joan and Jane were often used interchangeably for the same person in legal documents.
- Jack was already the go-to for John.
- Nan was the standard for Anne.
One of the most confusing things for modern genealogists is the use of "Junior" and "Senior." In the 1600s, these didn't always mean father and son. Sometimes, it just meant the older and younger person with that name living in the same village. They might be cousins, or even unrelated. It was purely practical. "Hey, I mean the John Smith who’s fifty, not the one who’s twenty."
Social Class and the Name Gap
There was a massive divide in how the rich and the poor named their kids. The aristocracy loved their tradition. They had a pool of about twelve names they rotated through for centuries. If you were a Duke, you were probably named after your father, your grandfather, or the King.
The "middling sort"—merchants, craftsmen, farmers—were the ones who actually drove naming trends. They were the ones experimenting with "new" biblical names or virtue names. They had enough literacy to be influenced by books but weren't beholden to ancient titles that required a specific name.
As for the very poor? Their names are often harder to track because they didn't always make it into the parish registers, or if they did, the spelling was so phonetic and erratic it’s hard to tell what the intended name was. Spelling wasn't standardized. One clerk might write "Katherine," another "Katheryn," and a third "Catherin." All in the same week. All referring to the same person.
The Impact of the English Civil War
You can't talk about names of the 1600s without talking about the war. It split the country in half, and it split naming patterns too.
📖 Related: Bed and Breakfast Wedding Venues: Why Smaller Might Actually Be Better
When the Monarchy was abolished in 1649, names associated with royalty took a hit in certain circles. On the flip side, supporters of the Parliamentarian cause leaned even harder into the rugged, "plain" names of the Old Testament. This was a time of intense identity politics. Your name was your badge.
After the Restoration in 1660, when Charles II came back to the throne, there was a vibe shift. The "joyous" names came back. The strict, somber virtue names began to fade in popularity in England, though they stayed strong in the American colonies. People were tired of the austerity. They wanted names that sounded a bit more sophisticated, a bit more French, or a bit more "classic."
How to Research Your Own 17th-Century Ancestors
If you’re digging through records and looking for names of the 1600s, you need to be prepared for some hurdles. First, the calendar changed. Before 1752, the New Year in England started on March 25th (Lady Day). So if you see a birth record from February 1642, it might actually be 1643 by our modern reckoning. This trips up even experienced researchers.
Second, look for "Middle Names." Hint: they didn't exist.
Almost nobody in the 1600s had a middle name. If you see a record for "William Thomas Smith" in 1650, it’s almost certainly a mistake or a very, very rare exception. Double-barrelled first names or middle names didn't become a "thing" until much later.
Third, check the "Latinization." In many formal parish registers, the priests would record names in Latin.
- Johannes = John
- Gulielmus = William
- Maria = Mary
- Jacobus = James
Don't assume your ancestor was actually called "Gulielmus" at the dinner table. He was definitely just Will.
Why This Matters Today
Names are a window into what a society values. In the 1600s, people valued lineage, religious identity, and social standing. By looking at names of the 1600s, we see a world that was trying to figure out its identity between the old medieval ways and the upcoming Enlightenment.
We see parents who were scared of the high infant mortality rates and often gave a new baby the same name as a sibling who had recently died. It’s a heartbreaking detail, but it happened all the time. It was a way to keep a name—and a soul, in their mind—alive in the family.
Actionable Steps for Historians and Writers
If you are writing a story set in this era or researching your family tree, avoid the stereotypes. Here is how to keep it authentic:
- Check the Frequency: Don't name every character "Patience" or "Increase." Most people were still named Elizabeth, Mary, John, or Thomas.
- Vary the Spelling: If you’re writing a historical document, don't use modern standardized spelling. Let it be messy. "Hester" could be "Ester" or "Heaster."
- Use the Surname Trick: If your character is from the upper-middle class, give them a mother’s maiden name as a first name. It adds instant 17th-century credibility.
- Acknowledge the Politics: Remember that a name like "Charles" or "James" carried political weight in the 1640s and 50s.
- Look at Parish Records: Sites like FamilySearch or Ancestry have digitized actual 17th-century registers. Look at the handwriting. Look at the clusters of names in a single village. You'll see that naming was often a community-wide trend.
The 17th century was a loud, colorful, and often violent time. The names reflect that perfectly. They aren't just dusty words in a book; they are the echoes of a world being reborn.