Is Burnell a boy or girl name?
Burnell was mostly a boy name in the US. Across 1880–2024, 17.5% of the 3,383 US babies named Burnell were girls. Fewer than 10 babies were given the name in 2024.
- Boy rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Girl rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Babies named Burnell since 1906
- 3,383
- Most popular year
- 1920
- 86 babies
Boys and girls named Burnell, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1900s | 14 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 326 | 81 | 19.9% |
| 1920s | 562 | 173 | 23.5% |
| 1930s | 467 | 144 | 23.6% |
| 1940s | 410 | 115 | 21.9% |
| 1950s | 364 | 64 | 15% |
| 1960s | 216 | 16 | 6.9% |
| 1970s | 148 | 0 | 0% |
| 1980s | 122 | 0 | 0% |
| 1990s | 88 | 0 | 0% |
| 2000s | 29 | 0 | 0% |
| 2010s | 34 | 0 | 0% |
| 2020s | 10 | 0 | 0% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2023 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2022 | 5 | #12,656 | 0 | – |
| 2021 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2020 | 5 | #12,326 | 0 | – |
| 2019 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2018 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2017 | 5 | #12,571 | 0 | – |
| 2016 | 5 | #12,487 | 0 | – |
| 2015 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2014 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2013 | 10 | #7,615 | 0 | – |
| 2012 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2011 | 7 | #9,767 | 0 | – |
| 2010 | 7 | #9,847 | 0 | – |
| 2009 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2008 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2007 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2006 | 6 | #10,856 | 0 | – |
| 2005 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2004 | 8 | #8,244 | 0 | – |
| 2003 | 5 | #11,121 | 0 | – |
| 2002 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2001 | 5 | #10,796 | 0 | – |
| 2000 | 5 | #10,582 | 0 | – |
| 1999 | 12 | #5,353 | 0 | – |
| 1998 | 12 | #5,188 | 0 | – |
| 1997 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1996 | 8 | #6,577 | 0 | – |
| 1995 | 5 | #9,043 | 0 | – |
| 1994 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1993 | 13 | #4,476 | 0 | – |
| 1992 | 11 | #4,915 | 0 | – |
| 1991 | 11 | #4,799 | 0 | – |
| 1990 | 16 | #3,624 | 0 | – |
| 1989 | 15 | #3,640 | 0 | – |
| 1988 | 9 | #4,836 | 0 | – |
| 1987 | 10 | #4,283 | 0 | – |
| 1986 | 9 | #4,516 | 0 | – |
| 1985 | 11 | #3,832 | 0 | – |
| 1984 | 14 | #3,125 | 0 | – |
| 1983 | 13 | #3,256 | 0 | – |
| 1982 | 12 | #3,512 | 0 | – |
| 1981 | 16 | #2,797 | 0 | – |
| 1980 | 13 | #3,281 | 0 | – |
| 1979 | 13 | #3,192 | 0 | – |
| 1978 | 18 | #2,487 | 0 | – |
| 1977 | 14 | #2,925 | 0 | – |
| 1976 | 15 | #2,719 | 0 | – |
| 1975 | 16 | #2,551 | 0 | – |
| 1974 | 13 | #2,818 | 0 | – |
| 1973 | 17 | #2,321 | 0 | – |
| 1972 | 12 | #2,836 | 0 | – |
| 1971 | 10 | #3,176 | 0 | – |
| 1970 | 20 | #1,998 | 0 | – |
| 1969 | 19 | #1,916 | 0 | – |
| 1968 | 26 | #1,549 | 0 | – |
| 1967 | 24 | #1,577 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 11 | #2,483 | 0 | – |
| 1965 | 16 | #1,992 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 24 | #1,620 | 6 | #6,083 |
| 1963 | 16 | #2,048 | 5 | #6,692 |
| 1962 | 31 | #1,401 | 0 | – |
| 1961 | 18 | #1,961 | 5 | #6,663 |
| 1960 | 31 | #1,437 | 0 | – |
| 1959 | 28 | #1,505 | 0 | – |
| 1958 | 35 | #1,305 | 5 | #6,192 |
| 1957 | 39 | #1,252 | 9 | #4,236 |
| 1956 | 40 | #1,204 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 29 | #1,422 | 10 | #3,806 |
| 1954 | 30 | #1,384 | 8 | #4,316 |
| 1953 | 51 | #1,017 | 11 | #3,504 |
| 1952 | 49 | #1,030 | 15 | #2,827 |
| 1951 | 32 | #1,302 | 6 | #4,904 |
| 1950 | 31 | #1,294 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 43 | #1,074 | 8 | #3,924 |
| 1948 | 43 | #1,083 | 9 | #3,623 |
| 1947 | 44 | #1,094 | 7 | #4,402 |
| 1946 | 35 | #1,179 | 6 | #4,488 |
| 1945 | 39 | #1,018 | 9 | #3,166 |
| 1944 | 38 | #1,071 | 14 | #2,417 |
| 1943 | 34 | #1,172 | 28 | #1,597 |
| 1942 | 39 | #1,096 | 16 | #2,225 |
| 1941 | 46 | #938 | 7 | #3,612 |
| 1940 | 49 | #908 | 11 | #2,587 |
| 1939 | 37 | #1,054 | 15 | #2,132 |
| 1938 | 42 | #978 | 12 | #2,466 |
| 1937 | 50 | #871 | 19 | #1,793 |
| 1936 | 41 | #973 | 14 | #2,167 |
| 1935 | 49 | #905 | 8 | #3,185 |
| 1934 | 41 | #1,008 | 10 | #2,764 |
| 1933 | 56 | #827 | 10 | #2,711 |
| 1932 | 49 | #925 | 16 | #2,048 |
| 1931 | 48 | #944 | 19 | #1,809 |
| 1930 | 54 | #910 | 21 | #1,758 |
| 1929 | 52 | #932 | 25 | #1,560 |
| 1928 | 51 | #953 | 19 | #1,966 |
| 1927 | 49 | #1,002 | 7 | #3,915 |
| 1926 | 52 | #945 | 17 | #2,172 |
| 1925 | 59 | #873 | 22 | #1,852 |
| 1924 | 53 | #965 | 18 | #2,149 |
| 1923 | 56 | #916 | 18 | #2,097 |
| 1922 | 59 | #906 | 10 | #3,183 |
| 1921 | 64 | #870 | 18 | #2,133 |
| 1920 | 67 | #819 | 19 | #2,022 |
| 1919 | 44 | #1,024 | 13 | #2,532 |
| 1918 | 50 | #945 | 18 | #2,043 |
| 1917 | 44 | #984 | 9 | #3,130 |
| 1916 | 43 | #972 | 13 | #2,387 |
| 1915 | 49 | #882 | 6 | #3,848 |
| 1914 | 26 | #1,129 | 8 | #2,665 |
| 1913 | 28 | #931 | 9 | #2,181 |
| 1912 | 23 | #939 | 5 | #3,034 |
| 1911 | 10 | #1,125 | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 9 | #1,127 | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 9 | #1,033 | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 5 | #1,268 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Burnell reached #819 in 1920. As a girl name, it reached #1,560 in 1929. Ranks count every name SSA published for that year and sex, so they go well past the top 1,000.
Names from the same era
These names were also most popular in the 1920s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Names spelled like Burnell
Source: US Social Security Administration baby name data, 1880–2024. Counts are Social Security card applications for US births; SSA leaves out names given to fewer than 5 babies in a year. Updated 2026-10-05. How these numbers are made.