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 1926
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Massachusetts#57 · 1 in 326
- Connecticut#62 · 1 in 347
- Rhode Island#65 · 1 in 313
- New Jersey#80 · 1 in 528
- New York#95 · 1 in 598
Best ever in a state: #35 in Connecticut, 1910.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | #57 | 104 | 1 in 326 |
| Connecticut | #62 | 34 | 1 in 347 |
| Rhode Island | #65 | 17 | 1 in 313 |
| New Jersey | #80 | 57 | 1 in 528 |
| New York | #95 | 161 | 1 in 598 |
| Wisconsin | #100 | 44 | 1 in 539 |
| Michigan | #101 | 69 | 1 in 593 |
| Pennsylvania | #103 | 108 | 1 in 808 |
| District of Columbia | #104 | 5 | 1 in 676 |
| New Hampshire | #104 | 5 | 1 in 631 |
| Illinois | #110 | 82 | 1 in 707 |
| Minnesota | #122 | 30 | 1 in 717 |
| Maine | #130 | 8 | 1 in 758 |
| Hawaii | #132 | 6 | 1 in 521 |
| Maryland | #142 | 11 | 1 in 1,190 |
| North Dakota | #143 | 9 | 1 in 704 |
| California | #156 | 39 | 1 in 943 |
| Ohio | #156 | 42 | 1 in 1,254 |
| South Dakota | #174 | 6 | 1 in 978 |
| Iowa | #185 | 14 | 1 in 1,425 |
| Florida | #196 | 11 | 1 in 1,388 |
| Nebraska | #197 | 8 | 1 in 1,459 |
| Missouri | #228 | 14 | 1 in 2,107 |
| Indiana | #250 | 9 | 1 in 2,872 |
| West Virginia | #265 | 8 | 1 in 2,194 |
| Tennessee | #270 | 9 | 1 in 2,663 |
| Virginia | #291 | 8 | 1 in 2,769 |
| South Carolina | #319 | 6 | 1 in 3,055 |
| North Carolina | #356 | 9 | 1 in 3,776 |
| Kentucky | #365 | 7 | 1 in 3,650 |
| Texas | #383 | 19 | 1 in 2,893 |
| Arkansas | #393 | 5 | 1 in 3,662 |
| Louisiana | #427 | 5 | 1 in 3,978 |
| Georgia | #453 | 5 | 1 in 5,406 |
| Alabama | — | — | — |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arizona | — | — | — |
| Colorado | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Kansas | — | — | — |
| Mississippi | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| Oklahoma | — | — | — |
| Oregon | — | — | — |
| Utah | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Washington | — | — | — |
| 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 1926
Top girls' names in 1926
Top boys' names in 1926
More about 1926
girls
1,185,401 girls got a published name in 1926; 1 in 169,343 of them was named Edmund, which outranked 31.1% of the 5,622 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 22.5% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
- #3,564Wylodean8
- #3,564Zane8
- #3,564Zonia8
- #3,873Edmund7
- #3,873Adalee7
- #3,873Adelita7
- #3,873Adrianne7
- #4,306Acie6
- #4,306Adamae6
- #4,306Ader6
Tied with 432 names at #3,873; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
- ↑ 1,047Janell#1,795 → #748
- ↑ 389Madalyn#1,225 → #836
- ↑ 382Evangelina#1,324 → #942
- ↑ 379Carla#1,252 → #873
- ↑ 351Vilma#1,020 → #669
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,110,505 boys got a published name in 1926; 1 in 1,097 of them was named Edmund, which outranked 96.8% of the 4,837 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 33.0% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
- #153Julius1,032
- #154Phillip1,020
- #155Ben1,013
- #156Edmund1,012
- #156Tony1,012
- #158Salvatore995
- #159Guy994
- #160Duane963
Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
- ↓ 531Okey#984 → #1,515
- ↓ 459Florentino#973 → #1,432
- ↓ 407Rexford#924 → #1,331
- ↓ 380Marshal#973 → #1,353
- ↓ 378Coolidge#746 → #1,124
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.