Royal

#1,652 for girls in 2025, 125 births · #476 for boys in 2025, 640 births
Given to boys 82.3% of the time

Showing
Show data for
Peak · boys
1889 · 37 births
Debut · boys
26 births
In top 100 · boys
never
of 146 years
Total births · boys
20,072
since 1880

Royal over time

girlsboys

Rank within each sex, plotted together. Click any year to open it.

#1#10#100#1,000#10,000rank188019001920194019601980200020201916peak #626, 2016peak #274, 1889girlsboys
Hover or use arrow keys to read values by year; click or press Enter to open that year.

Gaps mean fewer than 5 babies received the name that year, so the SSA doesn't publish it.

Show data table
Yeargirlsboys
rankbirthsrankbirths
2025#1,652125#476640
2024#1,217194#424745
2023#987259#401795
2022#863322#369880
2021#837329#369888
2020#772352#405740
2019#789351#458653
2018#798341#479610
2017#693418#502577
2016#626477#461662
2015#740380#465648
2014#1,023255#570489
2013#2,87059#886235
2012#4,48632#1,015194
2011#4,15135#1,193148
2010#6,90418#1,219145
2009#5,53725#1,390122
2008#8,52914#1,482110
2007#8,52014#1,412115
2006#10,61110#1,82375
2005#14,5026#1,86968
2004#7,82814#1,97461
2003#12,4087#2,10253
2002#10,2469#2,04653
2001#12,0567#1,91257
2000#8,53411#2,01550
1999#10,3458#1,96649
1998#9,2609#1,87152
1997#12,0706#1,93347
1996#7,57411#1,84249
1995#10,5147#1,98842
1994#8,8049#1,71652
1993#7,49811#1,72150
1992#10,4797#1,88443
1991#9,3368#1,61552
1990#7,88010#1,37066
1989#10,8476#1,73344
1988#10,3866#1,40455
1987#11,3255#1,63642
1986—#1,43948
1985#10,6775#1,33352
1984#7,3988#1,50741
1983#9,0156#1,19058
1982—#1,25455
1981#6,8049#1,33449
1980#5,54412#1,29152
1979#8,0617#1,22156
1978#8,5626#1,13460
1977#8,4446#1,22152
1976#6,6118#1,23849
1975—#1,25846
1974—#1,18249
1973—#1,16350
1972#7,2926#1,05059
1971—#99067
1970—#93173
1969—#95964
1968—#1,05749
1967—#87567
1966—#88866
1965#6,5395#83178
1964—#86078
1963—#89969
1962—#85079
1961—#80390
1960—#78295
1959—#80191
1958#4,8907#94465
1957—#750100
1956—#669130
1955#5,2086#715104
1954#5,7535#688110
1953—#654118
1952—#681104
1951—#601134
1950—#661112
1949—#601129
1948#5,2435#602126
1947#4,7646#541154
1946#3,9947#586120
1945#4,0256#497144
1944—#524135
1943—#572122
1942—#552124
1941—#571108
1940—#513127
1939—#539112
1938—#502134
1937#4,2555#503131
1936—#500128
1935—#520123
1934—#517127
1933#3,4067#461145
1932—#470149
1931#2,75010#463148
1930—#470158
1929#4,5705#399212
1928#3,4368#443182
1927—#432196
1926—#452181
1925—#424200
1924—#418214
1923—#396226
1922—#400228
1921—#446191
1920—#422200
1919—#409202
1918—#399223
1917—#413186
1916—#427174
1915—#432157
1914—#429125
1913—#45191
1912—#384100
1911—#48936
1910—#39644
1909—#37141
1908—#37438
1907—#43928
1906—#33538
1905—#38430
1904—#36830
1903—#36028
1902—#35531
1901—#39423
1900—#45525
1899—#33628
1898—#38526
1897—#42220
1896—#38026
1895—#32632
1894—#38723
1893—#28338
1892—#27942
1891—#28333
1890—#31231
1889—#27437
1888—#28440
1887—#33324
1886—#40319
1885—#31828
1884—#30632
1883—#37121
1882—#33227
1881—#37520
1880—#33426
First appearance
1880

In the first year the SSA published name data, Royal was already there! It came in at #334, and was given to 26 baby boys.


Quietest stretch: 1885–1887, when fewer than 29 boys a year got the name.

Where Royal is popular in 1916

  • Rank in state
  • Top 10
  • 11–50
  • 51–100
  • 101–500
  • 501+
  • Not published
Alaska: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedAKMaine: #163 for boys · 5 births · 1 in 946 boysMEVermont: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedVTNew Hampshire: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedNHWashington: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedWAIdaho: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedIDMontana: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedMTNorth Dakota: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedNDMinnesota: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedMNIllinois: #384 for boys · 8 births · 1 in 6,212 boysILWisconsin: #277 for boys · 7 births · 1 in 2,866 boysWIMichigan: #267 for boys · 10 births · 1 in 2,757 boysMINew York: #403 for boys · 10 births · 1 in 8,028 boysNYMassachusetts: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedMARhode Island: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedRIOregon: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedORNevada: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedNVWyoming: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedWYSouth Dakota: #171 for boys · 5 births · 1 in 1,021 boysSDIowa: #316 for boys · 5 births · 1 in 3,610 boysIAIndiana: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedINOhio: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedOHPennsylvania: #426 for boys · 7 births · 1 in 10,482 boysPANew Jersey: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedNJConnecticut: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedCTCalifornia: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedCAUtah: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedUTColorado: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedCONebraska: #246 for boys · 5 births · 1 in 2,080 boysNEMissouri: #313 for boys · 8 births · 1 in 3,076 boysMOKentucky: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedKYWest Virginia: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedWVVirginia: #288 for boys · 7 births · 1 in 2,636 boysVAMaryland: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedMDDelaware: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedDEArizona: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedAZNew Mexico: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedNMKansas: #254 for boys · 6 births · 1 in 2,197 boysKSArkansas: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedARTennessee: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedTNNorth Carolina: #371 for boys · 7 births · 1 in 3,592 boysNCSouth Carolina: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedSCDistrict of Columbia: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedDCOklahoma: #332 for boys · 6 births · 1 in 2,592 boysOKLouisiana: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedLAMississippi: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedMSAlabama: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedALGeorgia: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedGAHawaii: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedHITexas: #736 for boys · 5 births · 1 in 7,653 boysTXFlorida: fewer than 5 boys named Royal, so not publishedFL

Hover or tap a state for its numbers.

Top states · boys
  1. Maine#163 · 1 in 946
  2. South Dakota#171 · 1 in 1,021
  3. Nebraska#246 · 1 in 2,080
  4. Kansas#254 · 1 in 2,197
  5. Michigan#267 · 1 in 2,757

Best ever in a state: #107 in Utah, 1923.

Show every state
StateRankBirthsShare
Maine#16351 in 946
South Dakota#17151 in 1,021
Nebraska#24651 in 2,080
Kansas#25461 in 2,197
Michigan#267101 in 2,757
Wisconsin#27771 in 2,866
Virginia#28871 in 2,636
Missouri#31381 in 3,076
Iowa#31651 in 3,610
Oklahoma#33261 in 2,592
North Carolina#37171 in 3,592
Illinois#38481 in 6,212
New York#403101 in 8,028
Pennsylvania#42671 in 10,482
Texas#73651 in 7,653
Alabama———
Alaska———
Arizona———
Arkansas———
California———
Colorado———
Connecticut———
Delaware———
District of Columbia———
Florida———
Georgia———
Hawaii———
Idaho———
Indiana———
Kentucky———
Louisiana———
Maryland———
Massachusetts———
Minnesota———
Mississippi———
Montana———
Nevada———
New Hampshire———
New Jersey———
New Mexico———
North Dakota———
Ohio———
Oregon———
Rhode Island———
South Carolina———
Tennessee———
Utah———
Vermont———
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 Royal
Momentum · boys
Holding steady
  • 52 spots since 2024 (#424 → #476)
  • 71 spots since 2020 (#405 → #476)
  • 11 spots since 2015 (#465 → #476)
  • Biggest jump: 316 spots in 2014 (#886 → #570)
  • Biggest drop: 194 spots in 1958 (#750 → #944)
Rise & fade · boys
9 yrs to peak
  • Debuted 1880
  • Peaked 1889 at #274 (37 births)
  • Not yet halved from its peak
Top of the charts · boys
Top 1,000 for 104 yrs
  • Top 10: never
  • Top 100: never
  • Top 1,000: 104 yrs · run 1880–1967
Share of babies · boys
1 in 1,970
  • Highest: 1 in 1,970 boys born in 2021 were named Royal (0.05%)
  • Latest: 1 in 2,669 boys born in 2025 (0.04%)
  • Its best rank, #274 in 1889, was only 1 in 2,989 (0.03%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
Era · boys
The 2020s
  • 23.4% of all boys named Royal (4,688) were born in this decade
Girls or boys?
Never flipped
  • The majority has never changed
all girlsall boys
Show by decade
DecadeBirthsBest rankAvg rank
1880s274#274 (1889)#333
1890s299#279 (1892)#339
1900s312#335 (1906)#384
1910s1,338#384 (1912)#423
1920s2,030#396 (1923)#423
1930s1,355#461 (1933)#495
1940s1,289#497 (1945)#556
1950s1,068#601 (1951)#716
1960s735#782 (1960)#880
1970s561#931 (1970)#1,139
1980s496#1,190 (1983)#1,412
1990s502#1,370 (1990)#1,791
2000s764#1,390 (2009)#1,803
2010s4,361#458 (2019)#725
2020s4,688#369 (2021)#407

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.

Royal in 1916

boys
#427
174 births · 1 in 5,115 boys

Top boys' names in 1916

  1. #1John50,043
  2. #2William40,418
  3. #3James35,569
  4. #4Robert31,741
  5. #5Joseph23,883
  6. #6Charles23,612
  7. #7George23,381
  8. #8Edward17,005
  9. #9Frank15,291
  10. #10Thomas11,998
  11. #427Royal174
More about 1916

boys

890,080 boys got a published name in 1916; 1 in 5,115 of them was named Royal, which outranked 90.6% of the 4,535 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 30.7% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).

Ranked beside Royal
  1. #421Wiley177
  2. #425Lorenzo176
  3. #425Omer176
  4. #427Royal174
  5. #427Alden174
  6. #427Gabriel174
  7. #430Freeman173
  8. #431Jimmy172
  9. #431Mervin172

Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.

Biggest movers since 1915
Risers
  1. ↑ 2,568Tatsuo#3,392 → #824
  2. ↑ 1,088Hughes#1,878 → #790
  3. ↑ 410Angel#1,181 → #771
  4. ↑ 378Trinidad#1,181 → #803
  5. ↑ 354Rolla#1,306 → #952
Fallers
  1. ↓ 500Nicolas#804 → #1,304
  2. ↓ 468Collins#906 → #1,374
  3. ↓ 463Hilliard#952 → #1,415
  4. ↓ 383Arvo#952 → #1,335
  5. ↓ 363Rayford#941 → #1,304

Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.

See the top 100 for 1916 →