Family tradition: first born boy gets a certain set of initials.
We probably won’t have more than 2 kids. 1 is a real possibility.
Would you consider giving the first born girl the initials?
Or use them only for a boy?
If you did use them on a first born girl, would you use them again on a second child, a first boy?
Normally I wouldn’t want repeated initials but with the reasoning, and the fact that the two names
likely involved here, [name]Johanna[/name] and [name]James[/name], are pretty distinct, I think it could be OK.
I think if the names themselves are distinct, like [name]Johanna[/name] and [name]James[/name], the fact that the children may have the same initials won’t be an issue. There is virtually no way of guaranteeing gender, so even if you were to have two, they might both be girls. I would definitely use the initials on your first born child regardless of gender. It keeps the tradition going.
Thanks! Yeah that is basically what I’m thinking but welcome input. I realize there might be two girls, and if so the second girl would have a non-J initial.
If the tradition is for the first born son, then no, I would not use it for a girl. For one, it breaks the tradition and two, why limit yourself to a certain set of initials for a girl if you don’t have to?
Fair enough @pansy. I don’t know that it’s “breaking” the tradition. I mean it so happens that for the past 3 generations, the first born children have also been boys (husband, his father, and father’s father). So I think of it more as continuing/updating, but I do see your point.
If I didn’t have a combo I quite loved, I wouldn’t think as much about this, but, I do have a good candidate that uses the initials, so, it’s not such a sacrifice or something.