Rupert Willow

[name_m]Hi[/name_m] berries! We are now leaning towards [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_f]Willow[/name_f] for a boy and would like to know what you think of [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] and how you would perceive a person with this name. Thanks!

I think [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] is fine but isn’t [name_f]Willow[/name_f] a girl’s name? It always has been in my experience.

Lencol, thank you for answering. [name_f]Willow[/name_f] is the name of a beautiful tree and I feel like as a tree name it is gender neutral, although yes, it is more commonly given to girls these days a la [name_f]Willow[/name_f] [name_m]Smith[/name_m]. It’s not something my husband and I mind as for us the nature reference is more important.

I imagine a guy called [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] to be pretty cool. It reminds me of [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_m]Giles[/name_m] from [name_f]Buffy[/name_f], so really only good associations here.

[name_m]Rupert[/name_m] is fine. I would absolutely change the middle name. I don’t see it as gender neutral. It’s firmly in the girl camp.

I also believe that [name_f]Willow[/name_f] is more of a girl’s name, but you don’t hear middle names very often. That being said, I think that [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_u]Ash[/name_u] would be more masculine and cool while still maintaining the nature element.

[name_m]Rupert[/name_m] isn’t really my style, but when I hear it I think of a prince, so that’s a definite plus. Could have some cute nicknames too.

[name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_f]Willow[/name_f] is lovely. It makes me think of the English countryside for some reason. There’s a very peaceful feel to it.

And [name_f]Willow[/name_f] from [name_f]Buffy[/name_f].

Handsome combo!

I don’t see anything feminine about [name_f]Willow[/name_f]. The only “[name_f]Willow[/name_f]” I’m met in real life is a man in his 30s (in quotes because I don’t know how he spells it)

ETA: Did you consider [name_u]Willoughby[/name_u]?

The name [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] is cute. I don’t like [name_f]Willow[/name_f], for a boy or a girl, but it is only a middle name. If he is embarrassed that it is too feminine, he doesn’t have to share it. Give him the middle name you like.

[name_m]Rupert[/name_m] is a bit unusual and [name_f]Willow[/name_f] is very unusual (for a boy). I personally would chose a more simple, masculine middle name with [name_m]Rupert[/name_m]. [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] itself though is cute.

I thought the same thing. And I think of the ever charming [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] Grint :wink:

[name_u]Love[/name_u] [name_f]Willow[/name_f] in the middle for a boy! ^^ I never knew what made this name so exclusively female, the sounds is completely un-gendered to me.
I’m not so fond of [name_m]Rupert[/name_m], but he fits well with your sibset and the flow is not too bad with [name_f]Willow[/name_f]. I love the nickname [name_u]Rue[/name_u]!

I think [name_f]Willow[/name_f] is stunning on a boy! It seems like a nice alternative to [name_m]William[/name_m], while very sleek and stylish. I don’t really know if [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] is common in your area or not. But I think [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_f]Willow[/name_f] is great!

Thank you all for commenting! It seems that [name_f]Willow[/name_f] is getting mixed reviews, but I guess I already expected that. I’m just so in love with this combo and with the prospect of calling my baby boy the adorable [name_u]Rue[/name_u]… And what makes me happier is that it’s a name my husband is really into as well. We will further debate on whether middle name really will be [name_f]Willow[/name_f] or not, but [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] itself feels like a son of ours already.

I really really like the name [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_f]Willow[/name_f], it flows really well and has this vintage’s, old movies feel to it. It’s a great combo and I love the nn [name_u]Rue[/name_u]. I think it’s the perfect name.

And for those who think that [name_f]Willow[/name_f] is to feminine and a girls name, for example; what about the name [name_u]James[/name_u], that has been climbing up the girls list, isn’t that a boys name?

[name_f]Willow[/name_f] is a lovely nature name and it works for both genders.

Good luck!

Yes, I would agree that the only kind of people who would call a boy [name_f]Willow[/name_f], would be those who would call a girl [name_u]James[/name_u].

And I think both are bad ideas!

[name_m]Rupert[/name_m] is similar to one of my favorites, [name_m]Ruben[/name_m], with the same adorable potential nickname, Ru/[name_u]Rue[/name_u]! I think [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] hits a great balance of rare yet familiar/easy to spell/pronounce.

Weighing in on [name_f]Willow[/name_f] since I think this is a really interesting debate. I am first of all not one for sticking strictly to gender roles, so the idea of using a name commonly given to girls for a boy actually appeals to me since it is so commonly done in the other direction (all the young Blakes I can think of, for example, are girls). The only consideration, though, is that because of sexism, it may be harder for a boy to live with a “feminine” name than for a girl with a “masculine” one–so since names are above all gifts from us to our children, it’s worth considering how a young boy/man would feel about his name if it was perceived as feminine (though with enough anti-sexist parenting, perhaps he would feel just fine about it).

I think it’s an interesting argument that as a tree name, it’s inherently unisex. But I think rather than the associations of the (word or nature) name itself, it’s the history of usage that marks the name as feminine or masculine. Objectively there is nothing feminine about a rose plant, or masculine about a reed plant, yet [name_f]Rose[/name_f] is a girls’ name and [name_u]Reed[/name_u] is a boys’ name. Now [name_f]Willow[/name_f] on the other hand has a less lengthy history of use in general, but it is growing in popularity, and almost exclusively for girls. However, there was a a fantasy movie in the 80s called [name_f]Willow[/name_f] with a male main character of the same name (dating myself here!). It also has sounds very commonly found in boys’ names ([name_m]Will[/name_m], obviously, but also the -o ending which is very popular right now). I think this makes it a good candidate for cross-over.

If you’re also considering alternatives, taking names from your signature I think [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_m]Leo[/name_m] or [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_f]Sparrow[/name_f] share some of the same sounds, and [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_m]Forest[/name_m] has a similar nature feeling to [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_f]Willow[/name_f]. You might also consider [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_m]Willem[/name_m], which I think has a (similar) nice sound, but not the same nature vibe. As far as tree names, I think [name_u]Elm[/name_u] is a good candidate for a boys’ name as well (more contemporary/sleek version of [name_m]Elmer[/name_m] or [name_m]Elmo[/name_m]).

I really like [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] and would even use this myself, probably as a middle name. I am not a fan of [name_f]Willow[/name_f] for either gender but if it doesn’t bother you that it will most likely be seen as feminine, that’s fine. I really like the suggestion of [name_m]Rupert[/name_m] [name_u]Willoughby[/name_u] instead, but that’s just me.

I really enjoy the combination! I don’t think you should consider anything else if this is the name you love. The art of naming is hugely subjective, but you know your son better than anyone else so I trust (and you should too) your own instincts more than the opinions of strangers. Good luck deciding, although I think you’ve already found it!