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.

DP and 4 generations before him have the same name, I just did'nt want to carry it on even though his family tried to pressure us.

DP did'nt want to use it either because his middle names are well weird

In the end DS has his own first name (first in the family ) with DP's first name as his middle name and his surname. Kind of kept with it but they insist on using DS' name as a double barrell so that DP's first name is in there [anger] I have told DS not to respond.

The name chain in dp's family I was talking about was just eldest son of the oldest son, so unlikely to be more than 3 or 4 around at any one time. So it's pretty easy to know which is which -"Patrick's got a dreadful hangover' "Patrick wants a Darth Maul lunchbox" "Patrick's watching Last of the Summer Wine again"

i suppose that they did it on the old days as they had so many children it must have been a PITA thinking of names the whole time.

Don't really get it with boys, if the surname is being carried on, why first names as well? Bit greedy innit. Men!

You're assuming that all children take their father's name....not so!

I would keep it. In a similar situation I did. Luckily I love the name. The tradition and family history is important to me. Coincidently, it is a traditional name of on both sides of the family - so lots of people easily pleased!

Yes that's right seeker I live in the 1950s and am completely unaware of anything other than an utterly traditional set-up.

Most children do take their fathers surnames.

Unless I had always hated it and felt embarassment about it then I think the tradition thing would outweigh anything else.

You can't really be thought of as narcissistic if this is a tradition.

After we had named and registered our DD (only child) my husband informed me that his name went back 10 generations in his family! It is a name that can be used for both boys and girls and if I had known about the family history, she may well have taken his name. I regret breaking the line, but did not do it deliberately. He (on the other hand) was obviously not worried about it, as he had not mentioned it ... and ... after all ... it is his family tradition.

I've been pondering the same thing - we have male name chain on both mine and DH's families and for ages I have gone back and forward about whether I would like to continue it.

The eldest boys in my family are always called X, as far back as my dad has traced. my brother died as a child and so there are no more X Maidennames after my dad. Then in DH's family, the male name skips a generation - DH's Dad was called Y, DH isn't, DH's grandad wasn't, but DH's greatgrandad was (are you following? ). So any way, for us we think it's a good way of remembering both my brother, and DH's Dad as well as sticking with tradition and if we have a son he will be X Y Maidenname Surname.

Of course you know we'll have all girls now we've finally decided

I like traditions and traditional names. Our DD got a 'new' first name and then her middle name is from both sides. If we have a boy then I would like to give him DH's first name as a second name.
I think to give both of your names to a boy would might be a bit too much.
And if you have a girl then please give her a pretty name, not one that you think is less nice than your own. Give her your name as a middle name and choose something else entirely for her first.

I would only use it if you love the name.
I definately would not use any name just because it is a tradition.
Personally I find the whole scene of using the same name as mum/dad or other relatives quite sycaphantic tbh. A friend of mine cringed (and guests had to stifle laughs) at his wedding all because his mum and dad gave him the same middle name as his dads first name, for ths sake of "tradition".

have three names! my husband's family all do. he shares a second and third name with his dad - second name being an ancient familial name like yours that goes back centuries and is one of king arthur's knights, so not one you'd choose!!! - third name is his grandmother's maiden name. granddad leant on us heavily to use the arthurian name should baby be a boy - luckily it was a girl and we were more than happy to use the third name to keep a familial link and still got to use the two names we liked best. i used to think three names was ostentatious but i kinda like it now, especially now i know the history behind it.

ps I meant to add I do actually really like both names anyway.

We have 2 boys each with a 'chosen' first name and ds1 has his godfathers name and my dads name as middle names and ds2 has dhs name then his godfathers name. It sounded a bit mad when dh insisted it was tradition in his family that the middle name was after the godfather but I think it's quite sweet now and creates a lovely bond between the boys and their godfathers.