We have two boys, [name_m]Calvin[/name_m] [name_u]Dean[/name_u] (paternal grandfather), and [name_m]Lincoln[/name_m] [name_m]Daniel[/name_m] (maternal grandfather). The first names are “hero” names - great men in history.
I’m pregnant again and won’t know until delivery if it’s a boy or not…so, my husband likes the name [name_m]Churchill[/name_m]. The middle name would be [name_m]David[/name_m] after my husband - I INSISTED! Is [name_m]Churchill[/name_m] too much of a name for a boy…is it TOO unusual?
[name_m]Churchill[/name_m] [name_m]David[/name_m]…what do you think?
P.S. Our 2nd choice is [name_m]William[/name_m] [name_m]David[/name_m] (after [name_m]William[/name_m] Wilberforce).
[name_m]Churchill[/name_m] sounds strange (if you just say it w/o considering meaning/reference). I prefer [name_m]William[/name_m] [name_m]David[/name_m], as well. Or something from Greek, [name_m]Roman[/name_m], Biblical or other history. Any other heroes?
[name_m]Churchill[/name_m] is a little much. I think it’s the “church” part turning me off. [name_m]William[/name_m] is a nice name, but it seems rather nondescript. There are many [name_m]William[/name_m]'s in history, more than can even be counted, but [name_m]Lincoln[/name_m] or [name_m]Calvin[/name_m] paint a clearer picture of whom they’re honoring because they are less common.
Am I correct to assume that [name_m]Churchill[/name_m] is in honor of [name_m]Winston[/name_m] [name_m]Churchill[/name_m]? (You know what they say about assumptions. ) If so, perhaps it’d be better to just use [name_m]Winston[/name_m]. I think [name_m]Winston[/name_m] works with [name_m]David[/name_m] in the middle and is still more distinctive than [name_m]William[/name_m].
[name_m]Churchill[/name_m] would be better in the middle spot because some surnames just don’t work as first names. What’s wrong with [name_m]Winston[/name_m] as a first name? [name_m]Lincoln[/name_m], [name_m]Calvin[/name_m] and [name_m]Winston[/name_m] would be a fine trio. There is also [name_m]Randolph[/name_m] and [name_u]Spencer[/name_u] which are [name_m]Churchill[/name_m] family names.
[name_m]William[/name_m] [name_m]David[/name_m] is lovely!
[name_m]Winston[/name_m] [name_m]David[/name_m] would also work well to honor [name_m]Churchill[/name_m]. And is a bit more unusual so it fits nicely with [name_m]Lincoln[/name_m] and [name_m]Calvin[/name_m].
I agree with the others that [name_m]Churchill[/name_m] is a bit much as a first name.
I agree that [name_m]Winston[/name_m] would be fantastic! If not, I would go with [name_m]William[/name_m] [name_m]David[/name_m]. [name_f]Imagine[/name_f] a little boy going through life as [name_m]Churchill[/name_m].
I wouldn’t mind [name_m]Winston[/name_m] but it REALLY doesn’t work with our last name. I actually thought “Church” would be a cool nickname. Maybe I’m strange…
I feel for you as I love [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] [name_u]Paine[/name_u] but wouldn’t want to use [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] (too common and the namesake is not obvious) but I don’t feel that [name_u]Paine[/name_u] is usable as a first.
I feel that [name_m]Churchill[/name_m] is usable if you love it. Heck, much better than [name_u]Messiah[/name_u] imo! I much prefer “[name_m]Truman[/name_m]” though because the nn [name_u]True[/name_u] is so nice. Another one I like is [name_m]Thaddeus[/name_m] for [name_m]Thaddeus[/name_m] Stevens
) If so, perhaps it’d be better to just use [name_m]Winston[/name_m]. I think [name_m]Winston[/name_m] works with [name_m]David[/name_m] in the middle and is still more distinctive than [name_m]William[/name_m].