Would you break the chain?

[TabithaTwitchet]

If there was a name in your family that went back several generations with both male and female having a version of it for first or middle name, and you are called it yourself, would you break the chain with your own child?
I already have once - we agonised a bit about using it for DD's middle name, but in the end we decided against it.
Now we are ttc number two, who will probably be our last child, so last chance to use it.
Not sure whether to break the chain.
My great grandmother, grandfather, mum and me all have the name (albeit different versions of it, not exactly the same name).
Family history is important to me, and I liked very much feeling a connection to previous generations through my name.

If I have a son, the problem is that my favourite first name is the male "version" of my middle name, so the full name would be male variant of my middle name followed by male variant of my first name.
Is this bit narcissistic (and boring?)

For a girl we would use it as a middle name, but don't want to use my first own name (which is IMO prettiest version) so would instead have to use rather more boring variant (which was incredibly popular as a middle name in my own childhood). I do still quite like it though.

what's the name?

I'm lost

Sorry, was trying to avoid actually disclosing the names to make myself more anonymous . Obviously just being v confusing .

Ok, well, let's say that the name is George/Georgina and that your middle name is Roberta.

So - your name is Georgina Roberta, and you are worried about calling a DS Robert George. Is that right?

Yes, that's it.

Wouldn't bother me if I loved the name, and I would like to keep the tradition going.

People don't generally know each other's middle names anyway so it's unlikely many people would know about it.

I would go for it if you wanted to do it.

If you want to use it, then go for it.

Ds's middle name is one he shares with a lot of ancestors, and at age six he is actually quite interested in that.

I think it is the not being sure if I do love the name that is putting me off actually.

I just feel it would be a shame not to do it from a tradition point of view.

My dad purposefully broke the chain. I have a long name - first name, 3 x middle, double-barrel surname just so they couldn't insist on adding it as an extra middle name. Ruffled feathers but did my generation a favour as none of us (cousins & sister) have felt obligated to use it but have chosen a variety of family names as middle names. If you dont love it, dont use it.

I wouldn't dream of breaking such a chain.

Who cares if you love the name - it has so much meaning and history behind it. What a great thing for the LO to be a part of.

Anyway, that's why God invented second names, so we could call our children names we didn't like but that had meaning for us and our families.

If you use it as a second name only the child and your family will know what it is. It won't actually be what they are called.

Much better to have a meaningful name than some name that for some reason people have deemed to be appropriate middle names e.g. Grace or Mae.

I would absolutely break the chain, especially if the child was the 'wrong' gender. Also to name a child virtually your own name switched around/changed a bit seems both rather boring and rather as though the child is without its own 'hook' or identity.

There are so many lovely names and whilst I like the idea of sometimes using a name because it was the name of a loved one (eg dd1's middle name was my grandma's name) I think it has to be a name you love and also it should be as a middle name, not a first name. I think a child's first name should be his/her own and have no previous baggage/connections as it were.

But that's me: you, must, of course, do what you feel is best!

Yes I would. There's a similar thing in my only family with male children and it annoys me. I've no intention of continuing it.

Own not only.

Absolutely I would. DH's family tradition is that every first born son is called John although they are known by their middle name. Bloody stupid and if dd had been a boy it would not have been anywhere near my list. No one even knows who the original John was so bolleaux to it. Daft nonsense.

It would be kind of odd for a mum called Georgina Roberta Jones to call her son, George or Robert George, but not Robert John.

Am racking brain for a name that can have different variations and cross genders!

We have a chain! Shall I tell you about it?

The mum's first name is the DDs middle name. Thus linking back through the maternal line as well, which is one in the eye for the chaps monopolisation of the surname IMO!

Happily my first name is also MIL fist name, so have killed two birds with one stone with DD1, now am expecting another baby and will have free reign name-wise!

I wouldn't break the chain - and not narcissistic to have the male versions of your names - no-one will know or probably even spot it...

I know a family that do that, Eyeballs, loads of boys called William (Middle name) that are then called by whatever the middle name is. I agree with you, bloody ridiculous. If you have no intention of calling them by a certain name, why on earth name them it?

And to the OP, use whatever names you love.

I would use it. DD1 has a middle name that is from both sides of the fammily. My great grandmother's middle name, granny's first name, mum's middle name, sisters middle name.
On DH's side it is his great grandma's and Grandma's name.
I don't particularly like it TBH but we had to use it.

I love the tradition of it so I wouldn't break it. I have discovered that my family had one but my grandparents and parents dropped it-accidently my brother got back to it and now that we know, it might get back on track.

Spam that's a nice tradition. It's ok if it's the mum's name. It's men that are silly

I'd only use it if I really liked it. Your boy option does look a little narcissistic and I'm not sure why you wouldn't use the nicest version of the name for a dd. I have a family name in my mix, and it never interested me much, but dd is called after two great grandmothers and rather likes that.

I think middle names should be family names and child have their own first name

babynamelover.wordpress.com/

My ds's naming mended a VERY long (as in hundreds of years) chain that FIL broke in a fit of temper when dp was named (if you see what I mean) He always regretted it and the pleasure it gave to the whole extended family when we mended it was lovely. And DS loves looking at family trees and photos and things with the long line of people with his name on them

Helped that it's also one of my favourite names - not sure what I would have done if I had hated it, though!

So consensus is with girls names it's a wonderful tradition, but men are arses. Just with names or in general, I'm not sure

I'm not a fan of name chains. I know of a couple of families where boys are known by a series of nicknames or their middle names (so that you can actually tell them apart) and I do feel a bit about it. I suppose that it doesn't help that they usually go down the male line, so that the person who gives birth doesn't get any say in how their own child is named, which gets my feminist hackles up a bit.

I'm also not a fan of the "middle name as dumping ground" school of thought. Both my DDs have family middle names, but we love both names and would be very happy for our DDs to use them. We know quite a few grown-ups who use their middle name rather than a hated first name and so we wanted to give our DDs a choice.

If you really love a family name (and wouldn't have to think up a bizarre varient to distinguish your child from the heaps of other Xs in the family) then it's a different matter. All in my own very humble opinion of course.