Is it really wrong to name a new baby after someone that died?

My dad died 8 years ago and we gave my DS his name as a middle name as a tribute. I agree, it probably depends on the relative.

We are giving our dd the middle name of my MIL who passed away a few years ago. I think it is a nice thing to do.

I had a m/c between my first and second babies and toyed for a while with the idea of giving the name I had chosen for the baby I lost to our new baby. In the end, it seemed wrong. I certainly wouldn't name a child after a dead sibling. Too much of a burden on the child. A new life, a new name. Respect for the child that died and for the new child.

naming after a dead older relative - grandmother etc - I think is fine. In fact, I think that in the Jewish faith you can only name children after dead relatives, not living.

Wouldn't you find it confusing? To have two children called by the same name, even if one is sadly not with you now.

I think naming after a sibling does seem a bit odd. It potentially takes away the first child's place in people's minds and the second child might feel a bit strange. I think middle name is fine though.
To name after another relative is completely fine and quite common.

I don't think it is a good idea for a first name, and I'm not at all sure about it as a middle name either tbh. But then I don't think that names should be reused to closely anyway - dd is named after two of her great-grandmothers - I wouldn't go any closer. My niece has the same name as an aunt, but I think just because my sister and BIL liked the name. I find it a little confusing at times though (although there are two other relatives with the same name, so I guess it already was slightly confusing). My cousin died at four, I would not have considered using his name at all, and woudl have considered it really insensitive. Likewise another sister has called her dd a name very similar (a short but stand alone form) to my father's sister who also died young (although in her 30's) and I'm not sure that my father was very happy about it (not that he would say).

I think being called after an older sibling that had died would be slightly morbid, and might make the new child feel a little not real, or wipe the memory out of the older one. How would you speak about them for example?

I don't think it's weird but if you have any doubts whatsoever then maybe it's best to go with first instincts, then you have peace of mind and everyone's happy. Your new son would have his own special unique name and having it as a middle name is a lovely way to honour him.

Thinking about it some more, I think the best thing, if you want to use the name, would be to give it as an extra, second middle name. Then the child hasn't been deprived of their own names, they've just got extra (and if they want to stop using it, they've still got a spare for middle initial etc.)

I think a middle name is ok, but I know a family who lost a baby girl Carys (example name not real name)and called their next baby girl Angel Carys,which I feel is a bit morbid.

I had a stillborn DD and wouldn't want to reuse her name for any other child because I wouldn't be able to talk about her and refer to her (as fucksticks said basically). Personally, I don't think I'd use it as a middle name either, but mostly because the name wouldn't work, not because I had any philosophical objection to it.

I think giving the name as a middle name for another child is fine. My mother also had a stillborn DD before me, and I had two Christening mugs and two napkin rings because I had hers as well as my own. There are many things odd in my family (not least the fact the older baby never had a name) but having artifacts from my dead sister has never ever given me isshoos and I've never been worried by it. It was normal to me. And in fact, being told about why I had the things is probably the only reason the previous baby's memory is alive in me today. So it could work nicely (if handled right) to tell a child that their middle name was given to them from their sibling who died.

Would never ever use a sibling's name for all the reasons given above!

I would also not re-use the name of another relative if it was either a very recent/unexpected death (i.e. wounds still fresh & other people in the family might be upset to hear the name), or if it was a child who had died (unless very long ago perhaps) - again too much scope for comparisons and upsetting people imo.

But if none of those things applied, I think it is a lovely way to honour their memory, either as a first or middle name.

Message withdrawn

I tend to think of middle names being good ground to honour people, so I wouldnt think it was strange if you used it as a middle name. I'm afraid I would think it a bit strange if it were used as a first ame, as other people have said it seems abit like you are trying to replace the dead sibling...

hmmm...after a dead sibling...can see how that might be a bit odd....althouhg, maybe as a middlname as a gesture....

I think it would be more of a shame for memory of the one that passed away, almost dilute the memory in a way - for example if you mentioned 'when peter was born we were in london' you'd have to qualify it with 'the 1st peter' rather than letting his name speak for itself and be his
I'm probably not explaining myself very well, but if you name another child 'peter' too, then forever going forward your friends and family will think immediately of child 2 when they hear the name peter, rather than remembering child 1.

My nan was named after her sister that died. I don't think it really affected her as it was more common then and she was the youngest of 11 - the sister she was named after being one of the oldest children.

I gave my daughter my mum's name as her middle name. My mum died alomst 20 years ago to the day that DD was born. It's a way, for me, of honouring my mum and giving her a part in the family that she missed out on iyswim.

Sockmonster - this used to be very traditional in Europe, to name a new baby after a sibling who has passed away. Especially in the past when more children died. My dh has an aunty called the same name as her sister who died when a baby.

Don't do it. My parents did. They had a baby girl when I was 4 and she died at birth. Was given a name that my Mum loved. Mum went on to have 2 more girls and didn't use the name but then had a surprise baby late on and did use the name. Youngest sis hates that she was called after the baby that died.

I agree, I think after a sibling it looks like an attempted replacement. However, as a middle name it wouldn't be used much, you'd probably have fewer eyebrows raised and after the name is initially announced, would be less remembered/referred to in future.

FWIW, after endless agonisation we named DD2 our favourite name, which also happened to be the name of my sister who was a cot death. I was 2 when she died but don't remember her. We asked my parents. My mum was really enthusiastic, feeling that it was time to move on and she chose the name because she likes it so much. My Dad was a little more reticent but ok. The weirdest thing was other people who had known my sister. No-one has said anything, but I know that their point of reference with my DD2 was, at least to begin with wrapped up with my dead sister. She's now 10 months and if I'm honest, I still feel odd about it but now she's becoming her own person it is getting easier.

I think naming, particularly middle names, after older relatives who have been important in your life is lovely.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

sockmonster, it's hard to say. Especially when we're talking about (gulp) the working classes of the early 20th century because we don't know how they really dealt with things like that. It may be that the original Peter was named after his grandfather, say. And when he died they still wanted to honour said grandfather rather than first son IYSWIM. It's convenient to think that it was easy come easy go with children when conditions weren't great but we don't know that, isn't a mother always a mother etc. Oh, it's not ooming out right but I know what I mean . Anyway, I digress. I think these days we are a bit more sensitive about these things (or we think we are) so I would feel uncomfortable using the name again tbh.

It's secrets that would give a child ishoos, not a name. If you found out you had the same name as a sibling you didn't know you had then yes it would freak you out. But if you do know, know that your parents loved them and loved you, are able to recognise the part of the lost sibling in the family and are taught that you have the same name as a mark of that love within the family then I think any child would be fine.

sock monster - I lost a baby boy through miscarriage and when we found out we were having another boy we did think of using the name but decided not to.

We felt that it would be like erasing that our other boy had existed and also we wanted our new little boy to have his own special name.

I'm really glad now (3 years on) it was deffo the right choice.

I would never dream of calling another child i may have by the same name as my son that died. I'd be mortified too if a close relative chose to name their child after my son - it's his name, not anyone elses, iyswim.