We had a son 3 yrs ago and his middle name is the first name of our son who died a while back. We actually had 2 sons die and said the next boy would get the name of our other son who died in the middle. All of our children have middle names that are namesakes. So, after grandparents mostly, or my husband (one has my husband’s first name as a middle name).
IF we have another boy, I don’t really want to use the name of our other son in the middle. It is a bland name. It has no culture to it, no history. I admit that when I used it for the child who actually died, I had watched way too many [name]Matthew[/name] Mcconaughey movies. Yes…his middle name is [name]Matthew[/name].
My sister says she feels slighted that she is the only one of us (just the girls) whose middle names are not namesakes. Honestly, our brother’s middle name was also not a namesake.
I don’t want to use [name]Matthews[/name] name. But then, I feel guilty. And it is not like he would be the only child to have a boring bland middle name.
What do you think? Would you just use it? Or pick something else?
I would focus less on the name itself, and the namesake tradition in your larger family, and focus entirely on your feelings re: naming your baby in honor of your deceased son. It seems like you were keen to honor the first child you lost, but perhaps your grief was fresher then? What a horror, losing two children. Is there anything you can identify as to why you do not feel it as imperative to bestow [name]Matthew[/name]'s name as well?
This obviously a very sensitive and fraught conversation, and if you do not feel like sharing your feelings on the matter publicly, I understand.
However, know that for centuries it was traditional to give children the names of their deceased siblings. In some poorer districts of Industrial English cities childhood mortality topped 40%. Therefore if you pulled baptismal cents for a given family you might see the same name repeated two or three times. I mentio this only because in the modern era some people view naming a new baby after a deceased sibling as a bit morbid, like you’re trying to replace the one you lost. I disagree with that view and think it can be a fitting memorial to a too-short life, and would like to reassure you that you have historical tradition on your side if you choose to do so.
I’m sorry for your losses, first of all. I think [name]Matthew[/name] is one of the very best more common names out there, and I think of other [name]Matthews[/name] before [name]Matthew[/name] McConaughey, which may lend it more weight. ([name]Matthew[/name] [name]Cuthbert[/name] in [name]Anne[/name] of [name]Green[/name] Gables is just one of the sweetest, most adorable old man characters in a movie ever, for example.)
[name]Mateo[/name] is another option if you’d be happier with a variant. Or you could do a second middle name with more spunk if you have another son, so you can still use [name]Matthew[/name] and pick another middle name as well.
I hope you find peace about this, either way. I don’t think you can go wrong here, as long as you are happy with your decision. What does your husband/partner think?
The middle name of my oldest two are the city that they were conceived in, but my youngest son’s middle is after my mom who passed away while I was pregnant with him. I don’t regret doing it, and I think that he will still feel special because of it. We have decided to name our new twins in the same City vain.