Edmund
Last seen for girls in 1979 at #10,210 · #1,081 for boys in 2025, 199 births
Given to boys 99.9% of the time
- Peak · boys
- 1914 · 792 births
- Debut · boys
- 67 births
- In top 100 · boys
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · boys
- 52,083since 1880
Edmund over time
Rank among boys' names. Edmund has never cracked the top 100 here.
Gaps mean fewer than 5 babies received the name that year, so the SSA doesn't publish it.
Show data table
| Year | girls | boys | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | births | rank | births | |
| 2025 | — | #1,081 | 199 | |
| 2024 | — | #1,170 | 178 | |
| 2023 | — | #1,098 | 194 | |
| 2022 | — | #1,191 | 168 | |
| 2021 | — | #1,152 | 174 | |
| 2020 | — | #1,415 | 122 | |
| 2019 | — | #1,193 | 160 | |
| 2018 | — | #1,141 | 168 | |
| 2017 | — | #1,156 | 163 | |
| 2016 | — | #1,035 | 192 | |
| 2015 | — | #1,111 | 173 | |
| 2014 | — | #1,089 | 176 | |
| 2013 | — | #1,180 | 152 | |
| 2012 | — | #1,273 | 138 | |
| 2011 | — | #1,468 | 111 | |
| 2010 | — | #1,639 | 95 | |
| 2009 | — | #1,367 | 125 | |
| 2008 | — | #1,425 | 118 | |
| 2007 | — | #1,576 | 99 | |
| 2006 | — | #1,536 | 97 | |
| 2005 | — | #1,431 | 103 | |
| 2004 | — | #1,271 | 118 | |
| 2003 | — | #1,233 | 117 | |
| 2002 | — | #1,215 | 113 | |
| 2001 | — | #1,185 | 115 | |
| 2000 | — | #1,137 | 122 | |
| 1999 | — | #1,068 | 127 | |
| 1998 | — | #1,085 | 119 | |
| 1997 | — | #922 | 147 | |
| 1996 | — | #979 | 128 | |
| 1995 | — | #1,034 | 116 | |
| 1994 | — | #912 | 143 | |
| 1993 | — | #936 | 132 | |
| 1992 | — | #876 | 145 | |
| 1991 | — | #867 | 147 | |
| 1990 | — | #819 | 155 | |
| 1989 | — | #787 | 159 | |
| 1988 | — | #742 | 162 | |
| 1987 | — | #665 | 189 | |
| 1986 | — | #643 | 194 | |
| 1985 | — | #672 | 174 | |
| 1984 | — | #657 | 172 | |
| 1983 | — | #637 | 180 | |
| 1982 | — | #572 | 225 | |
| 1981 | — | #530 | 251 | |
| 1980 | — | #521 | 269 | |
| 1979 | #10,210 | 5 | #454 | 320 |
| 1978 | — | #489 | 271 | |
| 1977 | — | #493 | 271 | |
| 1976 | — | #577 | 198 | |
| 1975 | — | #559 | 209 | |
| 1974 | — | #536 | 223 | |
| 1973 | — | #528 | 221 | |
| 1972 | — | #502 | 245 | |
| 1971 | — | #479 | 285 | |
| 1970 | — | #469 | 298 | |
| 1969 | — | #434 | 332 | |
| 1968 | — | #412 | 350 | |
| 1967 | — | #397 | 369 | |
| 1966 | — | #385 | 394 | |
| 1965 | — | #372 | 432 | |
| 1964 | — | #356 | 484 | |
| 1963 | — | #358 | 473 | |
| 1962 | — | #372 | 469 | |
| 1961 | — | #346 | 523 | |
| 1960 | — | #345 | 509 | |
| 1959 | — | #336 | 532 | |
| 1958 | — | #321 | 573 | |
| 1957 | — | #287 | 662 | |
| 1956 | — | #306 | 591 | |
| 1955 | — | #295 | 604 | |
| 1954 | — | #288 | 607 | |
| 1953 | — | #281 | 621 | |
| 1952 | — | #267 | 659 | |
| 1951 | — | #270 | 625 | |
| 1950 | — | #286 | 553 | |
| 1949 | — | #280 | 586 | |
| 1948 | — | #280 | 576 | |
| 1947 | — | #268 | 633 | |
| 1946 | — | #243 | 637 | |
| 1945 | — | #273 | 478 | |
| 1944 | — | #243 | 555 | |
| 1943 | — | #219 | 666 | |
| 1942 | — | #231 | 602 | |
| 1941 | — | #224 | 576 | |
| 1940 | — | #242 | 498 | |
| 1939 | — | #247 | 467 | |
| 1938 | — | #234 | 513 | |
| 1937 | — | #226 | 523 | |
| 1936 | — | #212 | 554 | |
| 1935 | — | #212 | 564 | |
| 1934 | — | #206 | 600 | |
| 1933 | — | #207 | 567 | |
| 1932 | — | #190 | 691 | |
| 1931 | — | #184 | 708 | |
| 1930 | #4,550 | 5 | #177 | 808 |
| 1929 | #4,053 | 6 | #171 | 829 |
| 1928 | #4,725 | 5 | #163 | 911 |
| 1927 | #4,805 | 5 | #160 | 929 |
| 1926 | #3,873 | 7 | #156 | 1,012 |
| 1925 | — | #152 | 1,042 | |
| 1924 | #4,002 | 7 | #148 | 1,115 |
| 1923 | — | #143 | 1,145 | |
| 1922 | #5,009 | 5 | #153 | 1,014 |
| 1921 | — | #142 | 1,104 | |
| 1920 | — | #138 | 1,104 | |
| 1919 | #4,814 | 5 | #144 | 1,007 |
| 1918 | — | #140 | 1,099 | |
| 1917 | #4,594 | 5 | #135 | 1,045 |
| 1916 | — | #134 | 1,032 | |
| 1915 | — | #136 | 961 | |
| 1914 | — | #130 | 792 | |
| 1913 | — | #131 | 599 | |
| 1912 | #2,979 | 5 | #143 | 452 |
| 1911 | — | #142 | 235 | |
| 1910 | — | #154 | 200 | |
| 1909 | — | #166 | 147 | |
| 1908 | — | #164 | 141 | |
| 1907 | — | #167 | 129 | |
| 1906 | — | #161 | 122 | |
| 1905 | — | #176 | 108 | |
| 1904 | — | #167 | 109 | |
| 1903 | — | #166 | 102 | |
| 1902 | — | #167 | 104 | |
| 1901 | — | #161 | 95 | |
| 1900 | — | #202 | 94 | |
| 1899 | — | #168 | 87 | |
| 1898 | — | #163 | 101 | |
| 1897 | — | #161 | 96 | |
| 1896 | — | #150 | 110 | |
| 1895 | — | #175 | 90 | |
| 1894 | — | #160 | 96 | |
| 1893 | — | #180 | 80 | |
| 1892 | — | #170 | 93 | |
| 1891 | — | #202 | 61 | |
| 1890 | — | #224 | 54 | |
| 1889 | — | #155 | 89 | |
| 1888 | — | #197 | 76 | |
| 1887 | — | #196 | 61 | |
| 1886 | — | #173 | 80 | |
| 1885 | — | #192 | 68 | |
| 1884 | — | #191 | 72 | |
| 1883 | — | #185 | 63 | |
| 1882 | — | #186 | 71 | |
| 1881 | — | #187 | 61 | |
| 1880 | — | #187 | 67 | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Edmund was already there! It came in at #187, and was given to 67 baby boys.
Quietest stretch: 1890–1891, when fewer than 62 boys a year got the name.
Where Edmund is popular in 1919
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Rhode Island#50 · 1 in 199
- Connecticut#56 · 1 in 255
- Massachusetts#62 · 1 in 341
- Vermont#69 · 1 in 303
- New Jersey#75 · 1 in 453
Best ever in a state: #35 in Connecticut, 1910.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rhode Island | #50 | 23 | 1 in 199 |
| Connecticut | #56 | 47 | 1 in 255 |
| Massachusetts | #62 | 89 | 1 in 341 |
| Vermont | #69 | 7 | 1 in 303 |
| New Jersey | #75 | 59 | 1 in 453 |
| District of Columbia | #78 | 6 | 1 in 444 |
| New York | #91 | 147 | 1 in 573 |
| Michigan | #94 | 56 | 1 in 519 |
| Wisconsin | #95 | 45 | 1 in 451 |
| Pennsylvania | #100 | 111 | 1 in 714 |
| New Hampshire | #101 | 5 | 1 in 556 |
| Maine | #103 | 11 | 1 in 482 |
| Illinois | #104 | 78 | 1 in 632 |
| Minnesota | #104 | 36 | 1 in 532 |
| North Dakota | #112 | 12 | 1 in 525 |
| Maryland | #121 | 14 | 1 in 847 |
| Nebraska | #134 | 16 | 1 in 672 |
| Ohio | #143 | 39 | 1 in 1,118 |
| Iowa | #146 | 21 | 1 in 884 |
| South Dakota | #161 | 6 | 1 in 951 |
| Indiana | #186 | 14 | 1 in 1,520 |
| California | #199 | 16 | 1 in 1,364 |
| Kansas | #199 | 10 | 1 in 1,399 |
| Colorado | #217 | 5 | 1 in 1,430 |
| Florida | #234 | 6 | 1 in 1,497 |
| Texas | #254 | 32 | 1 in 1,411 |
| Kentucky | #259 | 12 | 1 in 1,900 |
| Missouri | #262 | 11 | 1 in 2,305 |
| Virginia | #285 | 8 | 1 in 2,723 |
| Oklahoma | #357 | 6 | 1 in 3,130 |
| South Carolina | #386 | 5 | 1 in 4,055 |
| Tennessee | #400 | 5 | 1 in 4,378 |
| Alabama | #418 | 6 | 1 in 4,247 |
| Georgia | #530 | 5 | 1 in 6,203 |
| North Carolina | #536 | 5 | 1 in 6,129 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arizona | — | — | — |
| Arkansas | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Louisiana | — | — | — |
| Mississippi | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| Oregon | — | — | — |
| Utah | — | — | — |
| Washington | — | — | — |
| West Virginia | — | — | — |
| Wyoming | — | — | — |
Ranks are within each state; “1 in N” is out of the boys born there that year. The SSA only publishes a name in a state when 5 or more babies of one sex got it.
See more about Edmund
- 89 spots since 2024 (#1,170 → #1,081)
- 334 spots since 2020 (#1,415 → #1,081)
- 30 spots since 2015 (#1,111 → #1,081)
- Biggest jump: 84 spots in 1977 (#577 → #493)
- Biggest drop: 163 spots in 1998 (#922 → #1,085)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1914 at #130 (792 births)
- Births halved by 1966, 52 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 117 yrs · run 1880–1994
- Highest: 1 in 827 boys born in 1914 were named Edmund (0.12%)
- Latest: 1 in 8,583 boys born in 2025 (0.01%)
- 19.6% of all boys named Edmund (10,205) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 708 | #155 (1889) | #185 |
| 1890s | 868 | #150 (1896) | #175 |
| 1900s | 1,151 | #161 (1906) | #170 |
| 1910s | 7,422 | #130 (1914) | #139 |
| 1920s | 10,205 | #138 (1920) | #153 |
| 1930s | 5,995 | #177 (1930) | #210 |
| 1940s | 5,807 | #219 (1943) | #250 |
| 1950s | 6,027 | #267 (1952) | #294 |
| 1960s | 4,335 | #345 (1960) | #378 |
| 1970s | 2,541 | #454 (1979) | #509 |
| 1980s | 1,975 | #521 (1980) | #643 |
| 1990s | 1,359 | #819 (1990) | #950 |
| 2000s | 1,127 | #1,137 (2000) | #1,338 |
| 2010s | 1,528 | #1,035 (2016) | #1,229 |
| 2020s | 1,035 | #1,081 (2025) | #1,185 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 boys in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Edmund in 1919
Top girls' names in 1919
Top boys' names in 1919
More about 1919
girls
1,130,117 girls got a published name in 1919; 1 in 226,023 of them was named Edmund, which outranked 13.4% of the 5,559 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 23.0% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Tied with 745 names at #4,814; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
980,122 boys got a published name in 1919; 1 in 973 of them was named Edmund, which outranked 97.0% of the 4,810 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 30.9% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.