[name_m]New[/name_m] baby coming in 2015…we like [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] w/ [name_m]John[/name_m] as the middle name (both of our fathers are named [name_m]John[/name_m]) [name_m]Just[/name_m] looking for some input…Thanks
It’s very redundant. [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] is essentially “son of [name_m]John[/name_m],” so I mean…
What southern.maple said. They’re essentially the same name.
Would you use [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] [name_m]Thompson[/name_m] or [name_m]Robert[/name_m] [name_m]Roberts[/name_m]? It’s the same thing in this case.
It’s a really nice idea to honor both your dads, and definitely makes it easier since they have the same name! But [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] in effect does that, and if that doesn’t seem direct enough, then choosing a first name that’s NOT [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] and the middle name [name_m]John[/name_m] would be the say to go.
Question: If you used the name [name_m]Jackson[/name_m], would you call him [name_m]Jack[/name_m]? Because you could name a son [name_m]John[/name_m] and call him [name_m]Jack[/name_m].
I agree with what the others said, [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] is “son of [name_m]Jack[/name_m]” and [name_m]Jack[/name_m] is a diminutive of [name_m]John[/name_m] so it is very redundent. It also is very close (atleast to me) to singer [name_m]Jack[/name_m] [name_m]Johnson[/name_m]. Anyway, I would chose either [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] or [name_m]John[/name_m] and pair another name with it. [name_m]Both[/name_m] names honor your dads so you still have the meaning there!
I agree, it’s very repetitive, much the same as [name_m]Phillip[/name_m] [name_m]Phillips[/name_m]. I like the idea of [name_m]John[/name_m], nn [name_m]Jack[/name_m] though
Thanks for your input, I get that they are derivatives of the same name. That said, we kind like the name for that very reason, as well as we want to call him [name_m]Jackson[/name_m], and honor our Fathers with [name_m]John[/name_m] as the mn.
I agree with the above posters that [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] and [name_m]John[/name_m] are variants of the same name, and thus redundant. Also, they’re far too similar in sound for a first and middle- both starting with J and ending in N, [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] with first syllable emphasis and [name_m]John[/name_m] only being one syllable, making it quite choppy.
You could consider [name_m]Johnson[/name_m], which has [name_m]John[/name_m] in it as well as the “son” part of [name_m]Jackson[/name_m], and you could still call him [name_m]Jack[/name_m] as a nickname.
I think [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] will honour your fathers. The ‘son’ part could be loosely interpreted to mean descendant of [name_m]John[/name_m], so I think it works perfectly. I agree with the others that ideally you should choose one name or the other rather than using both for the same person, as they are both fine names but come off a bit silly put together like that. If I were you I would either name him [name_m]John[/name_m] and call him [name_m]Jack[/name_m], or name him [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] - then in both cases I would find a completely different middle name. I personally like the first option better because it seems more direct, but since you love the first name [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] for your son, I would probably advise you to just use that. Of course, it’s your child and at the end of the day you can name him whatever you like.
Out of interest, did you have any other front-runners for the first name that you have considered? Or are you both pretty much set on [name_m]Jackson[/name_m]? A different first name with the middle name [name_m]John[/name_m] could be perfect, since [name_m]John[/name_m] goes well with most names.
I understand the redundancy of the two names as per the comments to my post. But disagree…[name_m]Jack[/name_m] and [name_m]John[/name_m] are two very distinctively different names in this day and age. Gone are the times of nicknames so prevalent in the 20’s 30’s and 40’s . I’d like to call my son [name_m]Jack[/name_m], but love to honor our fathers names of [name_m]John[/name_m]. The fact that the reaction disagrees…makes me think that [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] [name_m]John[/name_m] is a unique and perfect name…
Other front runner is first name [name_u]Hudson[/name_u]
[name_m]Jackson[/name_m] means son of [name_m]Jack[/name_m]- jack meaning [name_m]John[/name_m], so your sons name would literally translate son of [name_m]John[/name_m] [name_m]John[/name_m]. [name_m]John[/name_m] is lovely. Of you name him [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] you will still be naming him for [name_m]John[/name_m], as you will be calling him [name_m]Son[/name_m] of [name_m]John[/name_m], quite an honor in itself that is . I wouldn’t do that combination. [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] [name_u]James[/name_u] is good or [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] another name you want to honor?
Understood…but our fathers have never been known as “[name_m]Jack[/name_m]” nor would they relate the tribute of [name_m]Jack[/name_m] to their names of [name_m]John[/name_m]
[name_u]Hudson[/name_u] [name_m]John[/name_m] I think is darling! Or [name_m]John[/name_m] Husdon and call him [name_m]Jack[/name_m]? I’m a huge fan of namesakes so I really think if you’re wanting to get [name_m]John[/name_m] in there but don’t think [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] feels like that to you or will to them say you went with [name_u]Hudson[/name_u] [name_m]John[/name_m] and in a few years what if you had another son? You’d honored them with your first son and then your second son could be [name_m]Jackson[/name_m]? And his middle name perhaps his fathers name or something. [name_m]Just[/name_m] an idea, nothing wrong with just holding onto a name for later just in case. I have a few in our list and my husband has a name chosen for the next one and I have a name chosen for the one after that…, just in case just a thought, basically what we do, love it but they don’t go together amazingly… That said if you like it enough don’t listen to a bunch of random people on the Internet we are just a sound board. [name_f]Do[/name_f] what feels right.
You obviously have your mind made up, so why are you asking for opinions? [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] [name_m]John[/name_m] is like naming a kid [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_m]Seamus[/name_m] or [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f] [name_f]Caroline[/name_f]. If you want to look silly and give your son a redundant name, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you.
[name_m]How[/name_m] on earth is that relevant? You could just, you know, explain that [name_m]Jack[/name_m] is a nickname/form of [name_m]John[/name_m]. It’s really not as complicated as you are making it out to be - but, as others have said, it’s incredibly redundant and silly. I think you really don’t care at all what advice we have, unless it is telling you how absolutely marvelous your idea is. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but really, I don’t understand why on earth you would bother asking if you really don’t care what others are saying.
Wait… so the reaction you were hoping for was, “Huh… that’s kind of silly”? Well thumbs up, you nailed it! If you would like to name your son [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] [name_m]John[/name_m], go for it. You don’t need the permission of people on the internet. If other people thinking it’s silly is a plus point for you, great.
[name_m]Jackson[/name_m] [name_m]John[/name_m] isn’t unique though… [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] is like, the most popular name of 2013.
On the plus side, he could be called [name_m]John[/name_m]-[name_m]John[/name_m]!
I completely agree with everything that pp have said. [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] [name_m]John[/name_m] is very redundant and silly. I love [name_m]Jackson[/name_m] as a way to honor a [name_m]John[/name_m], but would choose a different middle name. But it sounds like you’re pretty much set on naming him that, so I don’t know why you are asking for opinions.