Usually I am totally against any sort of gimmick like alliteration, all state names, whatever when it comes to sibsets. But for some reason, I can not stop thinking about [name]Rose[/name], [name]Lily[/name], and [name]Violet[/name] together. I know you guys can tell it like it is, so let me know: would you think this is too tacky for three sisters?
Personally, it’s too tacky for me. I have considered it, though. 
Some of my earliest memories of my mom are of her working in her gardens, and a lot of flower names honor family for me ([name]Lily[/name], [name]Violet[/name], [name]Rosalie[/name], etc.), so it has been tempting! I don’t think I’ll do it for all my daughters, but I like the idea of a flower connection in a lot of my girls’ names, somewhere. Like [name]Liliana[/name] [name]Odette[/name] [name]Pearl[/name], [name]Violet[/name] [name]Ophelia[/name] [name]Claire[/name], [name]Johanna[/name] [name]Rosalie[/name] [name]Pearl[/name], [name]Arianne[/name] [name]Zinnia[/name] [name]Kate[/name], [name]Daphne[/name] [name]Imogen[/name] [name]Ruby[/name], etc. Something like that. The flower connection is there, but it’s not as obvious as, say, [name]Rose[/name] [name]Eleanor[/name], [name]Violet[/name] [name]Josephine[/name], and [name]Lily[/name] [name]Camille[/name]. [name]Lovely[/name] as those all would be. Maybe you could change it up slightly and do [name]Rose[/name]/[name]Rosalie[/name], [name]Viola[/name]/[name]Violetta[/name], and [name]Susannah[/name]? [name]Viola[/name] of course relates to [name]Violet[/name], and [name]Susannah[/name] means “lily”. You could still call them [name]Rose[/name], [name]Violet[/name], and [name]Lily[/name] that way, but they’d have a bit of variation to break up the theme.
I’d do a flower theme. But not a very blatant one.
To me [name]Rose[/name], [name]Lily[/name], and [name]Violet[/name] is very, very in-your-face and people will comment and loudly go “I GET IT… YOUR THEME!” etc. and that would annoy me.
[name]Jessamine[/name], [name]Bryony[/name], [name]Veronica[/name]? The other end of the scale, very few people will even notice. There’s a middle ground, too.
So yes, I adore flower names, but if they’re all FNs, I would try to be a bit subtler.
it sounds like a very authentically Victorian thing to do. Or an ironically Victorian thing to do, if you want to do it ironically.
I love the suggestions for how to partially hide the flower names, so that you can get your naming ya-yas out but your daughters could still opt out of being part of the garden, so to speak. Good compromise.
Great replies to this thread! Nameberries have such a way with words and names
My dd’s all have flowers (or plants) in the middle. So a middle name theme is something else you could do that is much less “in your face”
I don’t think that using all flower names is tacky, but it is a bit much. I like the ideas of using them as middle names or having all flower names that aren’t so obviouly flower names. [name]Bryony[/name], Cressidia, and [name]Violet[/name] for instance. It’s not tacky, just an obvious garden.
- [name]Athena[/name]
I don’t know if I would use them but I think they are cute. I really like [name]Lily[/name]!
I have wondered this so many times! I [name]LOVE[/name] [name]Marigold[/name] and [name]Juniper[/name] – not to mention [name]Hazel[/name], [name]Iris[/name], [name]Cassia[/name], and [name]Jacaranda[/name] – but I worry that an all-flower sibset would be way too over the top.
Thoughts on sisters [name]Marigold[/name] and [name]Juniper[/name]?
I think as middle names - wonderful. As three first names or as a FN MN combo - It’s too much. as other posters have said, something like [name]Amaryllis[/name] [name]Daphne[/name] is less flowery than say [name]Lily[/name] [name]Rose[/name] - it’s not immediately obvious.
Yes do it!!!
I definitely don’t think [name]Marigold[/name] and [name]Juniper[/name] is too much. It took me a second to work out that they were indeed both flower names!
I personally [name]LOVE[/name] the theme. Very cute and simple.
Also, I agree with crunchymama. Great responses
This is what I was thinking. Botanical/gemstone sibsets were extremely common during the late 19th-early 20th century, so it would definitely make me think of the Victorian era if I were to meet siblings named [name]Rose[/name], [name]Lily[/name] & [name]Violet[/name]. I would probably find it more charming than annoying.
But then, I love nearly all botanical names, so I’m always excited to see them being used, whether in a sibset or not.
It’s not tacky, I think it’s cute! Idk if I would personally ever do it but if I did I would elaborate and go with [name]Rosalia[/name], [name]Liliana[/name] -AWN ah, and [name]Violetta[/name] instead of just [name]Rose[/name], [name]Lily[/name], and [name]Violet[/name].
yes tacky! I taught a [name]Daisy[/name] and her sisters were [name]Rose[/name] and [name]Lilly[/name]…
Also taught a [name]Jasmine[/name]-sister [name]Rose[/name]. [name]Both[/name] times I thought it was rather tacky. Middle names is nice…But themed childrens names are not my thing!
i think perhaps we were separated at birth… i [name]LOVE[/name] this!
Yes, too gimmicky/tacky for me.
I don’t mind it, I think I would find it kind of sweet if I met a girl named [name]Rose[/name] with sisters [name]Lily[/name] and [name]Violet[/name]. However, I wouldn’t do it myself. I might use a flower theme as middle names though.
Maybe middles, but I don’t know about first names. Although, it’s not like you’re naming them a music theme with [name]Sax[/name], Tuba, and Flute or something! ([name]Don[/name]'t get any ideas, trolls)
I am a huge [name]Golden[/name] Girls fan, and I think [name]Rose[/name]'s sisters all had flower/plant names: [name]Rose[/name], [name]Lily[/name], and [name]Holly[/name]. I don’t know about tacky, but it does seem a bit contrived. There have been some great suggestions for a more subtle theme.
Yes - I really think it’s too tacky. If they all had flower middles it would be precious, but as first names, it’s really too much. [name]Violet[/name] and [name]Rose[/name] are lovely names my themselves though!