To think I can live with a name I hate because it means a lot to dh?

Baby names are a two yes, one no situation.

I agree with everyone else. I’d tell DH he could choose one of them as a middle name (I think you’re being generous saying he can have both as middle names to be honest) but that he needs to have his own first name.

My Jewish friend was in the same situation, and religion (don't quote me) says to name after a deceased person. However, they just went for a name with the same initial and that was quite acceptable

No, don’t do it. Your baby deserves his own name. My mum died before my dd was born. My mums name was an old fashioned one but I wished to honour my mum so it’s my dds middle name. Mum is honoured but dd has her own name and isn’t saddled with an outdated name.

My husband is named after his paternal grandfather who passed away (young and in pretty horrific circumstances) so shares both his first and surname and I’ve always found it strange. Will the baby share DH surname and therefore if he got his wish also have the same first and surname as his DH?
Agree id give the names as middle names but not as the first, it should be a name loved by you both and I wouldn’t want anything associated with unhappiness or death within the family but appreciate it’s personal opinion.

The first name you both like and either his dad or brother’s as a middle name. Seems fair.

Wouldn't dh use his own name as a middle name so his son will carry his name when he's gone? He already has his dad's surname, if he has the first name too he'll have the exact same full name as his Grandfather.
I couldn't imagine my dd having the exact full name of my mum or want her to, she's not a clone. I think that's really strange.

Middle names. Most people I know have middle names linked to family members. I think it is the done thing really. But I don’t know anyone with a first name after a family member.

I would approach this as - I don’t think it’s fair to give a child a first name of a deceased relative. It’s too much pressure on them. They should be their own person with their own name, not a reincarnation of a recently deceased relative that they never met.

I would not say that you do not like their names. Or that you want something more modern. That could really hurt your DH’s feelings and memory of his relatives.

I think that a first name of your joint choice, followed by the two middle names, is a compromise.

@Emotionalsupportviper

I adore Wilf and Ted. They are both epic names

Using them as middle names is a good and appropriate compromise.

Please rephrase your argument - stop saying 'the names aren't fashionable or modern' as fashions come and go so it's a moot point.
You need to start saying 'I don't like those names, however, I know they mean a lot to you so am willing to use them as middle names.'

You need to stay strong. Your DH will probably be upset and disappointed - which is fine and normal. I am really against giving babies first names after relatives; they should be their own person, not a walking memorial as others have said.

I would be wondering if he’s also going to dictate the name for the next baby too.

I agree.

Choosing names from each side of the family can be a way to honour both families or cultures in the baby's heritage (Irish/English/Welsh/Scottish/Jamaican/Ghanaian/Polish/French, etc). It doesn't imply a direct comparison.

MIL wanted us to use her favourite name a middle name for DS. We knew that she would use it to call him and then everyone else would follow. In fact we had already overheard phone calls with her telling people that it was his name! When DH registered the name he didn't bother with a middle name!

No, you're not being unkind at all. Your son will be his own , new person and needs his own identity to reflect that. It's more than enough to honour his relatives as middle names and in his surname. It doesn't have to be his entire name.

It's delicate but please hold firm whilst allowing your DH space to express his grief. Perhaps you could suggest a permanent personal memorial to each together such as planting a tree or naming a star if he feels he would like their name to 'live on'. Your son is not that memorial.

This is really sensible, and imo the best way to approach the subject with him. (Though he could counter with 'Martina', 'Alexandra', 'Michaela', 'Robyn', 'Danielle', or even the likes of 'Keitha', I suppose).

In my own family, reusing names is a definite thing - I'm one of many women both past and present to bear my own name - and I don't get the squeamishness about using a name given to an older relative, or the idea that it's necessary to find a completely new name for each new arrival in the family. At the same time, using the name of someone who has recently died isn't done. Maybe once a decent amount of time has elapsed, the name is used again, or maybe it crops up in a subsequent generation.

I'd also have a conversation with DH about perhaps getting a tree planted in honour of his lovely dad and brother. Where I live now, there are trees in the local parks with little plaques set into the ground nearby, commemorating loved ones who have died - is this a possibility where you are? Trees benefit everyone and add to the beauty of the environment. Check out the Woodland Trust for info on tree dedication in forest areas.

It's very hard to lose two close family members in a short period of time. It's especially hard to lose a sibling. Go easy on your DH.

This would be my take - 'traditional' rather than "old fashioned". I like traditional names.

Having said that my grand-dads were Wilfred (Wilfie) and Humphrey (Ted)* (honestly - you couldn't make it up; a pitman and a squaddie) and there's no way I would have saddled my son with those!

*No - I don't know, either 🤔

I think they should be middle names unless there is some kind of variation or shortened version which you do like.
I think both of you have to like the child's first name. The middle names are less important.
I don't see anything wrong with using the name of a deceased family member as long as both parents are happy with it and like it, but you don't so stick to your guns.

I agree with this. I believe a child should have it's own name. I'm names after someone and I hate my name.

Do you know the names of your dh's grandfather's and uncles, if they are old fashioned ask him how he would feel about being named some of them rather than his own name.

Not under normal circumstances (I'm named after my grandmother, and no one ever compared us); but I think that it could happen in a case where a child is named out of grief.

I agree that baby should have his own first name and one or both of FIL and BILs names as middle names. That way baby has his own identity in the family and other relatives don't have to use BIL or FILs first name for a new person which could potentially be upsetting, especially if the deaths were recent. DH still gets to honour the memory of his dad and/or brother.

It's also unfair that DH gets to choose baby's first, middle and last names and you don't get any.

Pretty sure parents don't compare their kids to the person they were named after 🙄

One thing that would worry me is that it could become an occasion for guilt and pressure if the child later goes through a rebellious phase or does something to disappoint his father: 'Robert, how can you shame your grandfather and uncle Robert's memories like this; they would never have done such a thing!'

Also, as pp have said, it might be distressing for your ILs to have to use a name associated with grief.

Middle names are best, IMO.

My oldest has the middle name of DH's brother who died. It is actually a lovely name and my own mum asked why we wouldn't use it as his first name. We wouldn't because he deserved his own name and also I think it would have upset my mil to have a "new" baby X - so that when the name was said it no longer meant her baby iykwim.

Go with middle names. Calling him after his dad, his brother and then his own surname is pretty exclusionary of you and your family and in fact isn't going to make his grief any better.