Twins with A & B names

My twins are known currently as [name_u]Baby[/name_u] A & [name_u]Baby[/name_u] B as all twins are while in utero, but we’ve been toying with the idea of giving them names that start with an A & a B. Then I got to wondering, does this forever make A The “first” and B the “second” baby (even though that is technically the case with how they are positioned) or is this too typical?. maybe I’m over thinking this. Naming is hard this time around!

I think there is always a baby A and a baby B, at least twins that I know. They are always [name_m]Luke[/name_m] and [name_u]Robin[/name_u], not [name_u]Robin[/name_u] and [name_m]Luke[/name_m], for example.

[name_m]Ah[/name_m]. When my sister-in-law was pregnant with her and my brother’s twins, they struggled with this for awhile. To them, they felt that keeping the baby A/baby B thing would be like eternally pointing out the positions. They ended up avoiding A/B names and were very happy with their decision :slight_smile: no one even thinks about their ‘code names/initial’ anymore.

With the twins that I’ve known, they’re always referred to as “older twin” and “younger twin” and not the other way around anyways, regardless of which name comes first in the alphabet. It tends to be the case even with siblings who aren’t twins too though. I don’t think their initials would necessarily make a difference. My first thought actually was, if they have a third child would he/she have a C name, a fourth a D name, and so on and so forth?! Though this might just be me :stuck_out_tongue: And if you did have more children and had say, A, B, M and H, I wouldn’t think anything of it.

I think it would be okay. As above posters have said, people don’t really think about whose first initial is first in the alphabet, and most siblings are referred too as older-younger anyway