While the words sound lovely, I think they are ridiculous as names.
Some comments from an article I read recently (deadspin.com/5924827/american-baby-names-are-somehow-getting-even-worse) -
'It's not enough for your child to have a normal name and then try to stand out on their own merits down the road. No, no, no. Every parent now wants every child to be unique and special from the moment the doctor wipes all the amniotic fluid off of it, even though all babies look alike and contribute nothing to society.'
And George Osborne's own comments on changing his name from the normal, albeit uncommon, Gideon (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1494588/The-future-belongs-to-us-predicts-Tory-partys-young-star.html) -
'At 13 he changed his name from Gideon to George. "It was my small act of rebellion. I never liked it. When I finally told my mother she said, 'Nor do I.' So I decided to be George after my grandfather, who was a war hero. Life was easier as a George, it was a straightforward name."'
Maybe your child will feel differently to Mr Osborne and be able to carry off being called Meadow, Forrest or Blossom happily but isn't there something to be said for giving your child a name, not a word, as an appellation? If your little baby is a shy sort, she might cringe at having to introduce herself as Meadow or Blossom and wish she were an Olivia or Sophie instead. I think there is a lot to be said for naming your child a straightforward name - one that identifies them but doesn't mark them out as being very posh/a chav/a hippy - and letting them grow into who they want to be.
I would assume the parents of a Meadow or a Forrest were vegan, hippyish, earth-loving folk... If that's you, the name does the trick but if it's not you or the image you wish to convey, maybe have a think again.
For what it's worth, all would make decent middle names and Jasper is a sensible choice.