Baby Boy Name SOS (Whit)

Name Advice
1

I’m due in two days and we have no official name for this poor baby. Unoriginal statement: boy names are haaard.

Here’s some important info:

Daughter’s name ends in an -er.

She has a nature word middle name (I really like the idea of continuing that for him).

Last name is Williams.

I prefer having a formal name option, husband prefers just the nickname.

With that said, the name we keep gravitating towards is Whit. If we went with a formal name, it would be a Whitaker. But the middle name I really like is Woods, making his possible name Whitaker Woods Williams.

This brings up the following questions:

Are three W names too much?

Is a triple surname situation too much?

Is the repetitive W-s in the middle and last names problematic?

Does it even sound good when spoken aloud or is it difficult to say?

Are two -er ending names too similar?

Am I overthinking or am I correctly thinking and need to start from scratch?

Other names we’ve tossed around are…

Whitaker Louis (honor middle)

Whitaker Gale (nature + literary middle)

Whit Theodore (nn only, honor middle)

EDIT: Thank you so much for all of the thoughful feedback. I sincerely appreciate. It’s so nice to have a space to hear from people who love names enough to be on a forum. The thing is that I should have mentioned is I loooove my daughter’s name. Her first and middle both have meaning, beautiful imagery and makes me feel magical and enchanted. I have yet to find a boys name to make me feel something and I’ve been questioning if that’s even possible. I want to give him something with a story behind it.

2

I’m sorry you’re struggling with this! But you will decide on a perfect name soon enough!

[name_f][/name_f]

There is nothing unusable about [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Woods[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m]. Is it W-heavy? Yes. Is it bad, offensive, or silly? No!

[name_f][/name_f]

You have to decide if all the W’s bother you[name_f][/name_f] personally. I don’t see the name affecting your son negatively in any way, and as long as that’s the case you and your OH can name him however you wish.

[name_f][/name_f]

For the record, I think it sounds fine said out loud, though your other options you listed do have easier flow.

[name_f][/name_f]

I’m not sure what you mean by triple surname [name_f][/name_f]- are there two more surnames in addition to [name_m]Williams[/name_m]? That does[name_f][/name_f] make for quite a long name. I fear that could be a hassle for your son [name_f][/name_f]- would you be willing to stick with two surnames, or drop [name_m]Woods[/name_m] and make one or two of the planned surnames, middle names instead? Example: [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Woods[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] [name_m]Cooper[/name_m] [name_m]Smith[/name_m] becomes [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] (Woods) [name_m]Williams[/name_m] [name_m]Smith[/name_m], or [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] (Williams Cooper) [name_m]Smith[/name_m]? (middles in parantheses)

[name_f][/name_f]

If we’re casting votes for favorites, I’m going for [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Theodore[/name_m]: I think it has the best flow, and the shorter first name could make the subsequent multiple surnames easier to digest.

[name_f][/name_f]

You will figure it out!! Good luck!

3

[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Woods[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] is[name_f][/name_f] a lot of W and it is[name_f][/name_f] a lot of surname [name_f][/name_f]- but [name_f][/name_f]- I think it still sounds sort of regal and bold, elegant with a touch of ruggedness. With the popularity of surname-names, I don’t think it’s that uncommon to have multiple in one name (recent baby announcements on the NB instagram have been [name_m]Raines[/name_m] [name_m]Alcott[/name_m], [name_m]Morrison[/name_m] [name_m]Mcrae[/name_m] and [name_m]Mack[/name_m] Mitton for example) [name_f][/name_f]- and most of the time, he’d be [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m], [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] or simply [name_m]Whit[/name_m], so the -s -s doesn’t bother me too much.

[name_f][/name_f]

In terms of the two -er endings, I think it would only be an issue is the other sounds were similar? Like if you have [name_f]Palmer[/name_f] and [name_m]Parker[/name_m].

[name_f][/name_f]

I think what matters is whether you feel comfortable with your choice. Does the three surname-names bother you[name_f][/name_f]? [name_f]Do[/name_f] you like the alliterative initials?

[name_f][/name_f]

[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Louis[/name_m] and [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] are very charming and cool [name_f][/name_f]- and does break things up..

[name_f][/name_f]

A few ideas:

[name_f][/name_f]

A different full-name for [name_m]Whit[/name_m], to break up the Ws or the surnames: [name_m]Prewitt[/name_m], [name_m]Winston[/name_m], [name_m]Wystan[/name_m], [name_m]Hewitt[/name_m], [name_m]Walter[/name_m]

[name_f][/name_f]

A different, nature-y / woodsy middle: [name_f][/name_f] [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Woodrow[/name_m], [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Sylvan[/name_m], [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Ocean[/name_m], [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_f]Laurel[/name_f], [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Rowan[/name_m], [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Douglas[/name_m] (as in [name_m]Douglas[/name_m] fir tree), [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Bear[/name_m], [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Storm[/name_m]

2 Likes
4

[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Woods[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] is a lot of W and it’s a slower sound to produce with your mouth so that lends it to feeling cumbersome – but it’s completely usable. The main two things I would focus on are:

[name_f][/name_f]
    [name_f][/name_f]
  1. [name_f][/name_f]

    [name_f]Do[/name_f] you both like [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] as a name in it’s own right, enough to use it regularly or occasionally? If your husband isn’t particularity keen on [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] in general and would likely never use it, I would go for [name_m]Whit[/name_m] as the full name. [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] is dashing and really nice to say. The middle name won’t be said aloud very much so I would prioritise the sound of the first name-surname over the first name-middle-surname.

    [name_f][/name_f]
    2. [name_f][/name_f]
  2. [name_f][/name_f]

    Think of the name story you would want to share with your son. Does it feel meaningful or joyful for you? Does it feel relatively comparable to your daughter’s name story (I don’t mean matching in style, but relatively similar in weight?) One day you’ll share with him the story of his name. The WWW initials are a bold statement so he’d be curious about the choice as would others. I think some would expect a special reason for the initials but you can still choose simply because they are your combined favourites.

    [name_f][/name_f]
    3. [name_f][/name_f]
[name_f][/name_f]

Another thought [name_f][/name_f] [name_f][/name_f]— [name_m]Whitman[/name_m] as an alternative route to [name_m]Whit[/name_m]. [name_m]Whitman[/name_m] [name_m]Woods[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m]. [name_m]Whitman[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m]. I’m a big fan of [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] from your list, but that may feel like too much compromise for you (as no formal name or nature theme).

[name_f][/name_f]

Ultimately, the name is fine but it sounds like it’s just not working for you. Sometimes putting our top names together doesn’t make for the best combination. If that’s how you feel, as sad as it is, I’d suggest letting go of [name_m]Woods[/name_m]. You have lots of lovely alternative middle name options you can use and time enough to find another nature middle name if you wish. If you’re wanting to expand your family, you could also keep [name_m]Woods[/name_m] for future son or daughter.

[name_f][/name_f]

You’re making the decision together and you’re doing it thoughtfully, with great love and care. So be encouraged that whatever name you ultimately choose will be a good name for your son.

1 Like
5

The thing is most of the time he’d be going by [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] which is such a cool, jazzy name. WWW are also fun initials. I frankly think [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Woods[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] has enough variety to still flow decently and if it’s your favourite, I say go for it.

1 Like
6

I prefer [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] over the other names on your list. I read (or misread!) the tone of your post as, “We think we need to give him a formal name as a fallback and that it’s only fair that he has a nature middle like his sister and here’s how we think we can make this happen, but it feels forced.” I’m in the camp of “give them the name you love, even if it’s a nickname”. [name_m]Whit[/name_m] is great by itself. [name_f]Honor[/name_f] middles are awesome–we did that with all three of our kids. The flow is great. [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] sounds cool. I’m all for it.

[name_f][/name_f]

If I was wrong about the tone above, and you LOVE [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Woods[/name_m], and you’re just concerned it’s “too much” and you want our blessing to use it, by all means, do it! Use what you love. For me, that would be a lot of W. But that’s a personal preference thing. It’s not a tragedy.

1 Like
7

I think it’s fine if it’s not going to bother you.

[name_f][/name_f]

But if you want to break it up, the best option IMO would be to do [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Linwood[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] since you still keep the “wood” part and it flows quite nicely.

[name_f][/name_f]

A few other nature middle options:

[name_f][/name_f]

[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_f]Sage[/name_f] [name_m]Williams[/name_m]

[name_f][/name_f]

[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] Orrick [name_m]Williams[/name_m]

[name_f][/name_f]

[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Orion[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m]

[name_f][/name_f]

[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Quill[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m]

[name_f][/name_f]

[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Glenn[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m]

[name_f][/name_f]

[name_f]Hope[/name_f] this helps!

1 Like
8

I think WWW are perfectly fine initials. There’s nothing wrong with them.

[name_f][/name_f]

I do prefer [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Louis[/name_m], though. [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] is too rhymey, though.

9

[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] is a bit tongue twistery for me especially with [name_m]Woods[/name_m] I love the cool vibe of [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] though. [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Orion[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m]? Ok maybe I’m trying too hard to get cool initials with that one. [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Linden[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m]?

10

I have a son named [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] (usually goes by Whit), my maiden name is [name_m]Williams[/name_m], and my brother’s middle+surname is [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m], so your entire post is close to my heart! :heart:[name_f][/name_f] I think [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] sounds great and [name_m]Whit[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] is fantastic.

[name_f][/name_f]

If you’re wanting some real life feedback, people respond very positively to both [name_m]Whit[/name_m] and [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m]. It’s unusual in terms of numbers, but still familiar.

[name_f][/name_f]

About the triple W situation, I’d just encourage you to find a middle name combo that you love. One that you love so much, you wouldn’t even care if someone said “huh?” Maybe that’s [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Woods[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m], maybe it’s something else. But if you love it 100% then it doesn’t matter if it strikes someone else as off. That’s my two cents!

2 Likes
11

Oh, I totally[name_f][/name_f] get where you’re coming from [name_f][/name_f]- boy names really are[name_f][/name_f] hard! Especially when you already have a daughter’s name you love so much and want her brother’s to feel just as meaningful and special.

[name_f][/name_f]

I actually don’t think the three W’s are too much [name_f][/name_f]- they sound kind of cohesive and charming together. But I do think the [name_m]Woods[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m] part is where it gets a little tricky; the double “s” ending[name_f][/name_f] makes it feel like a bit of a mouthful.

[name_f][/name_f]

Something like [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Woodrow[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m][name_f][/name_f] could totally solve that! It keeps the same nature-inspired vibe and triple-W alliteration, but the distinct endings make it flow much more smoothly. Each name has its own moment.

[name_f][/name_f]

That said, if you’re worried about the repetition, I think [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] [name_m]Gale[/name_m] [name_m]Williams[/name_m][name_f][/name_f] hits that same balance beautifully. It’s fresh, airy, and has the same nature/literary touch without the triple-W effect.

[name_f][/name_f]

And you’re definitely[name_f][/name_f] not overthinking [name_f][/name_f]- you just care deeply about giving your son a name with heart and meaning, which is exactly what a loving parent does. It might just take a little longer to find that “magical” connection, but you’re really close.