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

Mil died when I was pregnant and DD has her first name. I did like the name and felt it would be important to DH and his family.

dd is still very much her own person not a shrine.

Even if I hadn’t loved the name I would probably have done it. Very quickly their names are just their names and it’s fine.

I would put the point that John Arthur Smith (or Arthur John Smith) is neither John Smith (or Arthur Smith) and shouldn't be confused with THE John Smith (or Arthur) he's named after. He might not be the most loveable/most gentle/most sporty/most polite/nicest person out there that the original John Smith was, and it's important not to sully the memory of the much loved brother (or Dad) if the new, younger John Smith doesn't quite come up to scratch in those respects (which he probably won't). In years to come would the two John Smiths get confused in time? And won't that detract from your DH's memory of his brother? Best that your son is middle name to acknowledge his ancestry.

Well, a number of people on this thread either were that child or know someone who is/was and they all agree with me that the child was unhappy and/or resentful about it or even saw it as a burden. It's a bad idea.

This.

Also, how many children are you planning on having?

Maybe just one name this time rather than both?

Your son deserves his OWN name, and not to be a gravestone to the past.

There is no way I’d agree to this unless I liked the names. Make them 2 middle names instead.

I have 3 sons and we gave then traditional Spanish names. They were named with family members in mind, their names ,are solid and easy to pronounce in any language.

My youngest niece was given a beautiful name that's traditional in Spanish and English, except the pronunciation is different. She's a South African born and from an early age corrected teachers and friends how she wanted her name vocalised without a problem.

You need to talk to your DH and reach a compromise, but traditional, old fashion names can be tomorrow's modern trend again.

I’m not a parent, but this sounds ridiculously OTT to me.

Middle names for sure.
Baby's last name will be DH's last name (the same last name of his father and brother too).

So your husband is getting 3 out of 4 names already. You are carrying the baby and definitely have a say on baby's first name.

But the celebrity name still becomes the child's name. When I was pregnant husband and I both liked the name Natalie. In my case because I admired Natalie Merchant and in his, the actress, Natalie Baye. It's a combination of a nice name which 2 strong, intelligent , talented women had. It's considerably less weird than picking a horrible name just because it's a dead relative's.

Baby was a boy. First name not after anyone and second my maternal, and still living at the time, grandfather

I’m also team middle names. My Dad was named after two Uncles who died in WW2. He’s never really felt the names were his name, just on loan from dead uncles.

It also didn’t help various family members would get upset when they saw him and then of course started talking about the dead uncles. So it just made him super uncomfortable whenever he saw family.

A family member has used the names of 3 people who died for her dc and I find it a bit odd. They’re not that person and deserve their own name. You can honour/remember people who were important by using their names as middle names. I’d hate to be named after someone who’d died.

No. Your feelings count too.

Other way round for me! I’d have no problem naming a child Arthur but over my dead body would I name them David!

Middle names is fair, op.

That. I'm in my late 60s and still resent not having 'my own' name. I have three names and they were all chosen to 'honour' someone else.

Your baby is going to be his own person, and he deserves his own name. Brother and dad can be middle names.

It’s not fair to your baby. He’s a person in his own right, not a replacement for or tribute to a dead person. 2 middle names has got to be the way to go.

When the poster said about Frank, my thoughts turned to Frank Spencer.

But back to the op. No, it would be a heavy burden on your ds and very inconsiderate of his need to be an individual in his own right.

What are the names? Could they be a variation of them?

For example Tommy if the day was Thomas etc.

Here in Ireland sometimes people use the Irish version of the name to honour it but give the child their own identity. Don't know where you're but might be an option or the Welsh version or whatever?

My dd has 2 middle names, one being her dads mums name, it’s an old fashioned name that’s not really used anymore so I wouldn’t want it as a first name. I think using the names as middle names is a good enough compromise especially if the names something like “Garry or Graham” 😬

I actually think it is wrong to saddle a child with a first name in memoriam. Let the child have it’s own name with no history shackled to it.

A middle name (or double middle name) still honours them but is kinder to the child.

But the original poster, (@MistyGreenAndBlue ) DIDN'T say it was weird, just that they didn't like it - it was YOU that first brought weirdness into the conversation!

I agree with the majority - OP is carrying the child but he will have his grandfather's first name, uncle's middle name and father's surname, how is that fair?

Besides which, OP's family members will die at some point, if the DH thinks it's so important to name children after them why does his side get the 'honour' just because they died first?

If you said 'Okay fine but our next child we are naming
my grandmother's first name, my great aunt's middle name, my father's surname (i.e. your old surname if you've changed yours to his), what would he say?
(and the equivalent if your next dc was a boy).

This. I’ll never understand the tradition of naming children after dead relatives they will never know. It feels like putting a burden on an innocent child.

I completely agree. Your child is his own person, not some kind of echo of a dead relative.

It's not in any way weird to name a child after a relative, dead or not.
I agree and am also suprised that people find it odd. Maybe times are changing? My son has his (living) grandad's middle name, which is also his (dead) great-grandad's first name, and one that's run in the family for several generations before that.

vetoing a meaningful name that would mean a lot to a grieving spouse just becuse you want an as yet to be decided but more instagrammable "modern" name is awful
Gosh, yes, that WOULD be awful. Fortunately that's not what OP is doing in any way or form :D

I think your husband should be centring your son in his thoughts, not his brother and father.

How is his son going to feel about his names, once he is old enough to understand that his names are not his own, but 'belong' to other people?

Middle names only. Your son is entitled to be his own person, neither a tribute nor a shrine to the dead.

This

Your new baby deserves his own name, that you both like and are happy with.