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

[sockmonster]

Slightly odd question I know, my instinct is that it's a bit odd and not a great idea-
BUT just wondering what the general consensus is? For example- naming a baby after an older sibling that died?

Is that disrespectful to the older sibling, is it honouring them, or is it just plain weird for the new child?

Thanks

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

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...

Message withdrawn

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

Thanks so much for your comments on this everyone- I think in my particular situation it would be really inappropriate to use the name I was thinking of- and I'm still 50/50 about having it as a middle name though I think I will.
In particular I think the points made about erasing the previous memory of the name are true- I could never talk about the previous owner of the name again as they would have been replaced, which isn't good.

Thank you for your sense!

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.