Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These responses are interesting to me -- do people think Rose or Lily are insubstantial or childish names? I'm not clear on why Daisy would be any different.

'
Rose no, Lily maybe, Daisy definitely,

Also, the name can't help but evoke memories of Daisy Duke.

For whom? The Dukes of Hazard is an extremely out of date reference. I'm in my 40s and only get the reference because of my older brother and the fact that I recently read Jessica Simpson's autobiography (she played Daisy Duke in the movie reprisal of DoH in the oughts).

I think most people under the age of 40 would have no idea, and would be more likely to think of Daisy Ridley or just, like, the flower.

Personally, I like full names that have multiple nickname or use name options. Just because the parents love it for their child, the child when grown up may not. I think giving your child a more formal name and using the more casual name for daily use name is better. Naming her Margaret (for example) and calling her Daisy gives her a lot more options when she grows up. She could decide she'd rather use Meg, Megan, Molly, Polly, Peg, Margie, etc.

I know a number of people who had one nickname that they had as a child and that their family still calls them, but that they prefer a different nickname or even their full name when older.

Greta
Rita
Marjorie

Anonymous wrote:These responses are interesting to me -- do people think Rose or Lily are insubstantial or childish names? I'm not clear on why Daisy would be any different.

'
Rose no, Lily maybe, Daisy definitely,

Also, the name can't help but evoke memories of Daisy Duke.

Love it, but I'd also use Margaret on the birth cert and call her Daisy.

(I will say, as the parent of a John who goes by Jack, it'll be a thing occasionally, but not a huge deal.)

Anonymous wrote:These responses are interesting to me -- do people think Rose or Lily are insubstantial or childish names? I'm not clear on why Daisy would be any different.

To me it's different because it was often a nickname for Margaret, whereas Rose and Lily were more stand-alone names. Additionally, roses and lilies are seen as more elegant and sophisticated flowers than daisies.

Well, it's better than Lilibet. J/k, I like Daisy, I say go for it. And I don't usually like nicknames for formal names, but Daisy makes so little sense as a nickname for Margaret, I think it's fine to separate them.

These responses are interesting to me -- do people think Rose or Lily are insubstantial or childish names? I'm not clear on why Daisy would be any different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it pass the Supreme Court justice test?

You understand that when you use this as a test, it builds in a ton of bias against names that are more feminine or ethnic, right? If you'd asked the question in the 70s, people would have scoffed at the idea of a Sandra, Ruth, Sonia or Elena becoming a Supreme Court justice. Come on.

I get what you’re saying but people draw lots of conscious and subconscious associations with names. People with “black” names are less likely to get hired. I would not be surprised if people with frilly, pet-like names have their applications and resumes taken less seriously.

Alternatively, it's a memorable name that offers positive associations. I wouldn't be surprised if people with cheerful, memorable names are more likely to be remembered and to make an impression when interviewed. Having a name that makes people smile isn't a bad social hack, either.

I love it. It was my great grandmother's name (not a nickname). If I had a daughter I would have used it.

Daisy is a very popular name in the UK -- in the 30s in England and Scotland. Also, between Daisy Ridley (Star Wars) and Daisy Edgar-Jones (Normal People, which was the thing everyone in the UK watched at the start of lockdown last year) I would expect it to gain in popularity. I'm not sure why it sounds more childish to American ears, but no one in the UK would bat an eyelash at a solicitor or doctor named Daisy. It's quite common.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it pass the Supreme Court justice test?

You understand that when you use this as a test, it builds in a ton of bias against names that are more feminine or ethnic, right? If you'd asked the question in the 70s, people would have scoffed at the idea of a Sandra, Ruth, Sonia or Elena becoming a Supreme Court justice. Come on.

I get what you’re saying but people draw lots of conscious and subconscious associations with names. People with “black” names are less likely to get hired. I would not be surprised if people with frilly, pet-like names have their applications and resumes taken less seriously.

It feels insubstantial to me. Cute on a toddler, but I wouldn’t want it as my name. Would you?

Daisy Fuentes is doing just fine in her 50's. I think it's fine, OP.

Anonymous wrote:Does it pass the Supreme Court justice test?

You understand that when you use this as a test, it builds in a ton of bias against names that are more feminine or ethnic, right? If you'd asked the question in the 70s, people would have scoffed at the idea of a Sandra, Ruth, Sonia or Elena becoming a Supreme Court justice. Come on.