The most popular girls and boys’ names of 2015 are…. 89



View Profile

One thing that has changed quite a lot since we were born and our children were born is baby names. Many years ago the most popular names were Karen and Sharon, John and Peter, Emma and Kate or Daniel and Liam. Nowadays parents are choosing more modern names… or are they?

The top 100 list of boys and girls‘ names for 2015 has been released by Nameberry and we have to say: there are some surprises.

Rather that go for quirky names, it seems parents have stayed with classics and biblical names: the top girls’ name for 2015 is Charlotte and the top boys’ name is Ezra.

Closely followed by pretty classics Amelia and Ava for the girls, the boys had some more interesting top choices: Asher and Atticus, the latter being a main character in ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’!

Take a look at the top 100 lists of both the girls and boys and tell us: which are your favourite names? What are your grandchildren’s names?


  1. Charlotte
  2. Amelia
  3. Ava
  4. Olivia
  5. Cora
  6. Eleanor
  7. Isla
  8. Lucy
  9. Evelyn
  10. Penelope
  11. Aurora
  12. Violet
  13. Adeline
  14. Claire
  15. Hazel
  16. Adelaide
  17. Emma
  18. Scarlett
  19. Arabella
  20. Alice
  21. Luna
  22. Mia
  23. Grace
  24. Lila
  25. Imogen
  26. Esme
  27. Rose
  28. Quinn
  29. Evangeline
  30. Elizabeth
  31. Ivy
  32. Mila
  33. Ella
  34. Aria
  35. Harlow
  36. Caroline
  37. Nora
  38. Maeve
  39. Khaleesi
  40. Emily
  41. Chloe
  42. Matilda
  43. Maisie
  44. Aurelia
  45. Isabella
  46. Genevieve
  47. Sienna
  48. Anna
  49. Thea
  50. Nova
  51. Stella
  52. Audrey
  53. Riley
  54. Poppy
  55. Clara
  56. Elodie
  57. Iris
  58. Beatrice
  59. Sophia
  60. Eliza
  61. Ellie
  62. Ruby
  63. Wren
  64. Hadley
  65. Harper
  66. Willa
  67. Abigail
  68. Eden
  69. Eloise
  70. Jane
  71. Maya
  72. Lydia
  73. Astrid
  74. Clementine
  75. Eliana
  76. Mae
  77. Seraphina
  78. Cordelia
  79. Piper
  80. Everly
  81. Isabel
  82. Avery
  83. Sadie
  84. Emery
  85. Margaret
  86. Evie
  87. Hannah
  88. Emilia
  89. Elsie
  90. Ada
  91. Eva
  92. Josephine
  93. Mabel
  94. Leah
  95. Olive
  96. Julia
  97. Elise
  98. Daisy
  99. Gemma
  100. Rowan


  1. Ezra
  2. Asher
  3. Atticus
  4. Declan
  5. Oliver
  6. Silas
  7. Milo
  8. Jude
  9. Henry
  10. Jasper
  11. Kai
  12. Levi
  13. Jack
  14. Leo
  15. Wyatt
  16. Caleb
  17. Liam
  18. Miles
  19. Austin
  20. James
  21. Sebastian
  22. Finn
  23. Theo
  24. Ryker
  25. Andrew
  26. Zachary
  27. Everett
  28. Oscar
  29. William
  30. Felix
  31. Ethan
  32. Owen
  33. Beckett
  34. Theodore
  35. Benjamin
  36. Thomas
  37. Axel
  38. Jayden
  39. Ronan
  40. Archer
  41. Graham
  42. Callum
  43. Eli
  44. Logan
  45. Luca
  46. Bodhi
  47. Luke
  48. Lachlan
  49. Soren
  50. Grayson
  51. Jacob
  52. Sawyer
  53. Elijah
  54. Alexander
  55. Isaac
  56. Ryder
  57. Jackson
  58. Elliot
  59. Lucas
  60. Arthur
  61. Josiah
  62. Roman
  63. Emmett
  64. Nathaniel
  65. Dashiell
  66. Rhys
  67. Beau
  68. Jonah
  69. Hudson
  70. Lincoln
  71. Harrison
  72. Julian
  73. Charlie
  74. Noah
  75. Rowan
  76. Samuel
  77. Matthew
  78. Xavier
  79. Christian
  80. Connor
  81. David
  82. Gabriel
  83. Joseph
  84. Zane
  85. Hunter
  86. Rhett
  87. Weston
  88. Evan
  89. Arlo
  90. Aryan
  91. Maddox
  92. John
  93. Maxwell
  94. August
  95. Daniel
  96. Harry
  97. Griffin
  98. Tobias
  99. Cohen
  100. Cole

Starts at 60 Writers

The Starts at 60 writers team seek out interesting topics and write them especially for you.

  1. how are names royal as opposed to just names ….your compulsive obsessive mention of royals in just about every post is becoming concerning ( there is help available ) …

    12 REPLY
    • Lol, that’s the first thing that popped out to me too Rosanna ….. I wasn’t aware that there were ‘royal’ names !!! SAS are becoming quite compulsive in relation to the ‘royals’.

    • if only they would balance their articles much fact available…for instance Charles interference in govt policies cannot be legally challenged …and the police who guard them when they go to church ( why would they need protection….doesn’t everyone love them ) are taking off duty to do so …foodbanks in Britain are normal now ..while this greedy family live in obscence stolen wealth …

    • I’m with you Rosanna, we only hear the positive information on SAS, it would be good to see something negative …… it would be great to see the royalists comments on the negative side of this freeloading family ……. but hey, that isn’t going to happen !

    • Hardly ‘free loaders’.
      In return for the upkeep of the monarchy, cost 180million GBP, they have signed over the income from the Crown Estates which pour 2.3billion GBP into the UK Govt finances.
      That means, for those not gifted at math, that the Royal Family directly finance the UK Govt to the tune of 2.1billion GBP a year.
      If they all resigned and kept the income from the Crown Estates an effective accountant could give the Royal family an income of 2.1billion a year after paying tax of 180million!
      Seems the taxpayer is getting a great deal.
      They also bring in a lot of revenue from overseas and the system of government is one to be admired and is admired.
      The immediate Royal Family are a big asset; some of the others need to go away!

    • what a load of drivel ….the freedom of information act prevents any scrutinity of said monarchy ..the Duchy of Cornwall is a prime example….cost of security is said to run into hundreds of millions ..with no way of knowing the real cost ….the key word for this family is secrecy..but softly softly it is Charles in particular who is being brought to account…can direct you to many fine articles in relation to this subject …

    • What exactly are you trying to say? What is Charles being brought to account for? Of course they have to have security. So do Prime Ministers and Presidents. Where are all these fine articles (no doubt all supposition) that you are referring to?

    • Christa I will direct you to an English site by mutual friends….professional people …who have had enough of this nonsense …this is 2015 …monarchy should be obsolete …

    • Long presented by republicans as a drain on the taxpayers, the truth is this. Not only is the Royal Family entirely self funding -they actually produce a profit for the British taxpayer. The Queen is effectively paying taxes to the UK government at the extraordinary rate of 85%.
      This benefit to the British Treasury and indeed the Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and other Treasuries, is quite apart from their tourist and promotional potential.
      As for Australia, nothing – not a cent – has ever been paid to The Queen or any of the other members of our Royal Family. There is no salary, commission, or fees. We pay no superannuation, and there is no golden handshake. The same is true of Canada, New Zealand and the twelve other Realms.
      The Queen and no member of the Royal Family receive any personal salary as, for example Presidents typically do.
      Nor is there any provision for a pension or superannuation.

      Re the FOI…..Unwisely, the attributed costs of providing security have sometimes been revealed. This is a dangerous practice as it reveals what security is normally provided, something which for elementary reasons should not be made public. A protest by ACM about this has been considered by the government.
      The fact is The Queen and our Royal Family provide a unique an extraordinary bargain. That they also attract tourist and other revenue is of course also a relevant consideration. This is not only in the United Kingdom. A Royal Visit to Australia, for example, can attract international attention.

    • Well said, Christa. My husband and I have recently been to Mauritius and, though it isn’t a part of the British Commonwealth, they know the value of the very rich to the economy. As several of the poorer folk we talked to said, if it wasn’t for the small majority of the very rich, we wouldn’t have jobs or welfare benefits – these are the very ones providing an income for us because of the follow-through from their wealth.
      And the same can be said for the royals and the benefits that pass down to the thousands who gain employment through the different branches of the Royal family’s interests, and then further to the rest of the population purely benefitting from the tourist pounds that flow in.
      We have travelled to many nations and it is always the poor who benefit most from the rich – yes, other rich do too but the comparison to what it means to those with very little far outweigh the benefits gained by the already rich. You just have to look at communist countries to see what has happened when so-called equality is brought in – worse poverty, dictatorship rule and often anarchy ensues. Whether people like it or not, the very wealthy help society’s many tiers.
      And interestingly enough, Mauritius, which is classed as a poor country, has the highest percentage per capita of home ownership in the world – 85% of residents own their own home, so obviously having the small percentage of very rich benefits their society in a massive way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *