Rose and Ivy

Our #1 name for a future daughter is [name]Rose[/name] and our #2 name for a future daughter is [name]Ivy[/name]. [name]Do[/name] you think [name]Rose[/name] and [name]Ivy[/name] are too themey as sisters? If we were to have a [name]Rose[/name] and [name]Ivy[/name], would it be best to stick with a nature theme or avoid it for #3?

Other nature names I like:
[name]Sylvia[/name] nn [name]Sylvie[/name]
[name]Willow[/name] (our last name starts with W, so I’m not sure about this one…)

Other non-nature names I like:

Any other suggestions? I would want to avoid other names that start with R or I (otherwise [name]Iris[/name] would be on the list). Thanks!

others may disagree, but i’d say go for it if you love those names! ivy is one of my all time favorite names, the name i would choose for myself if i could choose. if you were to have a third girl, i would stick with nature, perhaps even limiting to botanical, names. so violet or willow would be my picks for a third from your list.

[name]Rose[/name] and [name]Ivy[/name] are way too theme-y for my taste. What if you have, say, [name]Rose[/name], [name]Ivy[/name] and [name]Willow[/name], and then a little boy comes along and you have no choice but to name him [name]Oak[/name]? And then you’ll be known as the nature-family and everybody’ll think you’re hippies. There’s nothing wrong with being a hippy or into nature, it’s just you don’t want people to assume, you know? I think if you’re planning on having more than one more after two nature themed names, I think it’s okay to break it, but you don’t want one kid to be left out.
But I do think [name]Rose[/name] is a fantastic name and I’d love to see it used as a first :smiley:

If we had two girls and a boy, I would not feel as obligated to the theme. My #1 boy name is [name]Jonathan[/name], so if we had two girls and a boy, they would be [name]Rose[/name], [name]Ivy[/name], and [name]Jonathan[/name].

girls are so much more prone to flower/nature names, that I think [name]Rose[/name], [name]Ivy[/name], and [name]Jonathan[/name] would be just fine. And I understand what the above poster was saying, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having all botanical girls, especially with names that are as classic and really timeless as [name]Rose[/name], [name]Ivy[/name], and [name]Violet[/name].

Not into the thematic sib sets. Sisters need their own identity. If you go with [name]Rose[/name] or [name]Ivy[/name] you can still have a pretty name just not nature themed (only my opinion though!).

[name]Grace[/name], [name]Jayne[/name], [name]Audrey[/name], [name]Margaret[/name], [name]Lydia[/name], [name]Piper[/name], [name]Tabitha[/name], [name]Abby[/name]…

[name]Just[/name] to clarify, we did not choose [name]Rose[/name] and [name]Ivy[/name] because of a nature theme. We like the names individually and then noticed the nature theme.

I guess my questions are:

  1. Would you not use a name you love in order to avoid a theme? (aka, not use [name]Ivy[/name] because it would start the theme)

  2. If you had two girls whose names have a nature theme, would you feel compelled to stick with the theme or avoid it with a future girl? We don’t think we’d have more than three children, so this is really only a question of child #3 if all three are girls.

I don’t mind it. It’s not in your face theme-wise like having [name]Rose[/name], [name]Lily[/name], [name]Violet[/name] and [name]Daisy[/name]. Also I don’t think a boy would have to fit into the theme, but I do think if you have a third daughter you’ll have to stick to the botanical theme.

I would avoid the theme even if it meant leaving behind a beloved name (you could always use it as a MN). Thematic MNs are totally OK. If you did go with it I think you would need to keep with the theme for the 3rd child boy or girl. This is just my opinion, you should go with your gut because you are the one that is going to be calling out these names for the rest of your life!