Finalists: Catherine London vs Catherine Jane

[name]Catherine[/name] [name]London[/name] - family names are always a plus. And with something so classic, strong and beautiful as [name]Catherine[/name] I think you’re free to be a little creative in the middle.

And I love [name]Constance[/name]! That would be my favourite option!

Is [name]Constance[/name] Czajkowski (pronounced Cha-cow-ski) too much of a tongue twister? This is my only issue with this name. My husband does not seem to like any of the names I’ve picked out except [name]Catherine[/name] and [name]Constance[/name] which is why we quickly have it narrowed to a several choices only!

[name]Catherine[/name] Czajkowski sounds perfect! But sadly, [name]Constance[/name] Czajkowski is more rhymey when I say it outloud.

My husband has his heart set on [name]Catherine[/name], I believe. We both love the distinctness of [name]Constance[/name] but his favorite name has always been [name]Catherine[/name]. So, the debate though continues around the following:

[name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name]
[name]Catherine[/name] [name]London[/name]
[name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name] [name]London[/name]
[name]Jane[/name] [name]London[/name] (mn [name]Elizabeth[/name] sounds better than [name]Catherine[/name] it seems here)

Thoughts?

Should [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name] be a double first name or just leave it as a first and middle name? I was thinking about if there will be other Catherines in her class. [name]How[/name] to avoid the child getting lost in a world of other Catherines. Most people remember my son’s name, [name]Stanton[/name], because it is so distinct. This is my true fear about [name]Catherine[/name]. I love it but how do I make it more distinct or is this even possible? This is one of the reasons that [name]Constance[/name] made the finalist list.

What name combination recommendation do you have to make [name]Catherine[/name] more distinct yet remain classic or is this possible? [name]Do[/name] you just go with [name]Constance[/name]?

[name]Catherine[/name] [name]London[/name] got my vote. You want a name that is distinct, and [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name] is NOT that name. If you want to make [name]Catherine[/name] pop you have to use something unexpected in the middle spot (like [name]London[/name]). [name]London[/name] has been a contender throughout this entire process, and especially because it’s a family name I say KEEP IT.

1st choice: [name]Kathryn[/name] [name]Jane[/name] - nickname: [name]Katie[/name]
2nd choice: [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name] - nickname: [name]Katie[/name]
:slight_smile:

To me, [name]London[/name] is not a name, it’s a place. I live in the UK so it is simply the capital city of the place I live.

I agree with southern.maple and jessicalucy that you want distinct name. However, how do you do this with [name]Catherine[/name]? Unless you create a double first name with [name]Catherine[/name]/[name]Katherine[/name]/[name]Kathryn[/name], doesn’t it become an ordinary yet classic name. This is where [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name], [name]Jane[/name] [name]Catherine[/name] even [name]Jane[/name] [name]London[/name] came into play. These are all double first names.

[name]How[/name] do you make [name]Catherine[/name] more distinct? Ideas? This is why is I continue to wrestle with this classic name. I love it, yet want to make it more unique yet maintain it’s classic regal appeal.

Well, you can’t make a name “more distinct” without changing it somehow, which is why we see [name]Caitlin[/name]/[name]Katelynn[/name]/Kaytlyn and [name]Caden[/name]/[name]Kayden[/name]/[name]Kaidan[/name]. If the option of spelling [name]Catherine[/name] differently doesn’t appeal to you–and I think, if you did, you’d lose some of its classic, regal appeal–then your options are narrowed to working with the middle name/names, either creating a double first name or choosing a distinctive middle name.

My favorite way to make a classic, well-used name sparkle is to pair it with a striking or unusual middle name. Two of my favorite boys’ combos, [name]James[/name] Deliverance and [name]Joseph[/name] [name]Nicodemus[/name], illustrate my personal style. For you, I think [name]Catherine[/name] [name]London[/name] will work, especially since [name]London[/name] is a special family name. [name]London[/name] is trendy here, yes, but it lends [name]Catherine[/name] a whimsical sparkle while keeping its regal image, and you get bonus points because it’s a family name.
Since you like [name]Kit[/name] as a nickname, it seems to me that choosing a double first name is a moot point, unless you change your mind on using the nickname often. If you do decide on a double first, I think both [name]Catherine[/name] [name]London[/name] and [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name] are out–[name]Catherine[/name] [name]London[/name] is too long, [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name] too classic. I’d maybe pick a quirky, one-syllable name to contrast with [name]Catherine[/name], and possibly keep [name]London[/name] as the middle name.

Congratulations, and best wishes for the baby’s birth and naming!

Have any name paired with [name]Catherine[/name] makes it even longer given our 3 syllable last name. I’m not sure which way to decide on this one. [name]Do[/name] I turn my back on [name]Catherine[/name] and possibly look at [name]Camille[/name]? [name]Camille[/name] [name]London[/name] sounds like another strong, regal yet more unique name than [name]Catherine[/name].

Thoughts on [name]Camille[/name] as a sibling for [name]Stanton[/name]?

[name]Camille[/name] would be lovely as a sibling to [name]Stanton[/name].

Yes, I agree [name]Camille[/name] would be lovely with [name]Stanton[/name]. Does your husband also like [name]Camille[/name]? I haven’t seen it as one of your options till now.

My husband said he liked [name]Camille[/name] but his heart is telling him [name]Catherine[/name]. So, it comes down to the following names:
[name]Catherine[/name] mn [name]Jane[/name]
[name]Catherine[/name] mn [name]London[/name]
[name]Catherine[/name] mn [name]Jane[/name] [name]London[/name]

The baby came early on [name]Sunday[/name], and, it was a girl! We leave the hospital tomorrow and must have a final name! Thoughts for the mn?

I really love [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name]. I find it classically beautiful, with [name]Jane[/name] being one of those names almost striking in its simplicity, you know? And with a last name like Czajkowski I think a four-letter, easy to say, easy to spell middle name like [name]Jane[/name] is almost needed. (Not that [name]London[/name] is a difficult name by any means, but [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name] C_____ just looks more balanced than [name]Catherine[/name] [name]London[/name] C_____.)

And I don’t think you’ll have to worry about her getting lost in a sea of Catherines - it seems like [name]Caitlyn[/name]/[name]Kaitlyn[/name] et al are surpassing [name]Catherine[/name] in popularity. Plus I went to school with at least 8 girls named [name]Katherine[/name]/[name]Catherine[/name] (child of the 90s, holla), but they all went by a different nickname so it never seemed like there was an overwhelming amount of them. I will say, though, that the one girl who chose to go by the name in full - never a nickname, always [name]Katherine[/name] - did stand out a bit more from the ones who went by a diminutive.

Fellow Newberries, I would like to thank you all for [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name] was brought home from the hospital. We loved the way the two names flowed together but I must admit I still think about putting [name]London[/name] into her middle name. This is only to carry on the name. The hospital said that until we send in the paperwork, her current name may be changed at any point. So, fellow berries , I ask you… Should I it in or leave [name]London[/name] out? It may never be said but it would carry on the name?

Congratulations on the arrival of little [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name]! I would leave the name as it is - as you said, they really flow together - but that’s just because I’m not a fan of two middle names; it seems like that unless you’re a royal, the second middle just ends up being more of a hassle than anything and gets kind of lost. But! If you really love [name]London[/name] - and it sounds like you do - than you should just go ahead and add it. I mean, if it’s going to bother you the rest of your life, why not? Especially if this is your last child.

Perhaps I should make [name]Catherine[/name] [name]Jane[/name] her first name, as we do love it and then [name]London[/name] her middle name? Her nn can still be kit or [name]Katie[/name] [name]Jane[/name]? Double first name?