I did a poll about this in the Quick Poll Thread, but I wanted to open this topic up for more discussion. I often feel restricted in thinking about names because I’ve long had this idea that with matching sibling initials it’s either all or none. But maybe that doesn’t have to be the case. I have known sibsets where two siblings share a first initial that the others don’t. Personally, I think it’s a little odd in a sibset of three because then one feels a little obviously left out, but even so…maybe it’s not such a big deal.
What do you think?
Do you have specific rules about this in your mind?
Does the number of siblings make a difference?
What is the reason you have the rule you do for yourself and the names you choose for your children?
I think two sharing an initial is a coincidence, three is a pattern (unless you are in a really big family). It doesn’t really bother me (I don’t necessarily think everyone needs their own initial if you’re using names you love), but it does become noticeable at three.
Interesting to think about the reasons why we think certain things/rules.
I’m only planning to have two kids so I don’t want them both to have the same initials because I don’t want people to think I was doing a kardashian type theme haha
If I were to have more I would hesitate to have two matching and the rest not. I think its almost purely for OCD-type reasons.
If I were to give anyone advice however I would tell them not to worry either way and ultimately choose the names they love.
I agree that I wouldn’t bat an eye at 2 with the same initial but 3 seems like they were trying for a pattern.
At the same time, if the Duggars didn’t do 19 J names they would still end up with at least a few kids sharing an initial.
I think it’s even less noticeable when there’s another child with a different initial (whether it be the oldest or in between). I’m generally pretty chill about initials in sibsets, but it doesn’t matter how much I like the names I wouldn’t do twins with the same initial or two kids with the same first AND middle initial.
Since I already have two, I wouldn’t give the third one the same initial as one of them. If we ended up having twins again I might consider using two other A and J names only if they happened to be the names we loved (I doubt it).
Otherwise, I am very much against repeated initials.
My personal rule is that I don’t want repeat initials for my kids, but it doesn’t bother me when I meet siblings with shared initials.
I think the number of siblings does make a difference! If I were to have only two kids and they happened to coincidentally share an initial, it wouldn’t bother me. If I had three/four/five kids, and there were only 2 that shared that initial, that would bother me.
I think it’s because I would feel obligated to keep using the initial so that either all of them shared it (which I think is a) tacky and b) what if I can’t find more names I love starting with the correct initial?). So, it’s easier if none of them share an initial.
When it’s a big family though, I doubt I would even notice! I was trying to think of an example and came up with the Weasleys from [name_u]Harry[/name_u] [name_m]Potter[/name_m] - until right this minute, I never realized that [name_u]George[/name_u] and [name_f]Ginny[/name_f] are the only siblings out of seven kids that share an initial.
I think it’s fine if every sibling shares an initial (obviously provided the names are different enough). If there are multiples and singletons and only the multiples share an initial, also fine. If you plan on having an even number of kids and want to give 2 an A name, 2 a B name (for example), also fine although personally I wouldn’t. I do find it a bit weird when there’s a set of 3 or more siblings and only 2 share an initial, unless there’s something separating the 2 with the same initial (like a large age gap or if the others are half siblings).
I think it’s cute when sharing a first initial if the name is something you love. I don’t see a problem with it. The only time I don’t love the shared initials is when inventive spelling happens to make the theme work. For example with the Duggar’s : [name_f]Jinger[/name_f] is spelled with a J rather than a G.
I would hesitate if the initials were mean / racist/ offensive or unfortunate (3 K names , BJ)
I don’t have an issued with shared initials at all, I find it sweet also, I do find it interesting to add that the Duggar’s explained once why they used all J names, and it does raise an interesting point!
They explained that after [name_m]Josh[/name_m], [name_m]John[/name_m]-[name_m]David[/name_m] and [name_f]Jana[/name_f] (which were all just names they happened to like), they never knew which child would be their last, and they didn’t want that last child to feel left out of their sibset for having a different initial. I think they said this really set in around [name_f]Jinger[/name_f], and that’s why she’s [name_f]Jinger[/name_f] with a J instead of a G - they loved the name in general but didn’t want her to feel left out from [name_m]Josh[/name_m], [name_m]John[/name_m]-[name_m]David[/name_m], [name_f]Jana[/name_f], [name_f]Jill[/name_f] and [name_f]Jessa[/name_f] if she ended up being their last child. (I watched their show far too often when I was younger)
It’s something that I feel like I’d probably end up doing as well, so unless I knew for sure how many kids I wanted to have and I had enough names of that one initial for that number, I probably wouldn’t do it for more than 2
I wouldn’t give my children the same initial purely because I want them to have their own initial, but my daughter and I both have the same initial. I love the name [name_u]Atlas[/name_u] but i would hesitate to use it because I already have an [name_f]Aurora[/name_f] and it’s another A.
Huh, I never noticed [name_u]George[/name_u] and [name_f]Ginny[/name_f] share an initial until just now! That’s funny. So, apparently, it does go pretty unnoticed in a big family!
I actually don’t care about initials at all, mostly because I never seem to be in situations where I use my own initials or meet people using theirs. I guess it’s just not customary where I live, and people don’t tend to think of initials when naming their children.
That being said, the perfectionist in me would probably want all my children or all my children of the same gender to share initials rather than have only some match. So I would probably try to find names with different initials for all my children to avoid the hassle
I write initials a lot on the calendar to save space. Stuff like “B’s doctor’s appointment”. So it isn’t a del breaker, but if I have two kids with the same initial, I’d have to find a new system.
I have very specific feelings on this topic, love that this thread exists! For myself:
I’m okay with siblings sharing the same first initial
However, it starts to bother me if two or more siblings in a set share the same first initial but there’s a sibling (or more) that don’t share it.
Unless, that is, every sibling has an initial match. As an example, [name_u]Theo[/name_u], [name_f]Tara[/name_f], and [name_f]Grace[/name_f] would drive me a little batty, but [name_u]Theo[/name_u], [name_f]Tara[/name_f], [name_f]Grace[/name_f] and [name_u]George[/name_u] would be something I’d do happily. If you added, say, a [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] or a [name_f]Gemma[/name_f] to that set, I’d also be good, but adding a [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] AND a [name_m]Thalia[/name_m] might feel a little unbalanced to me, etc.
Not crazy about siblings sharing the same middle initial unless there’s an intentional pattern to it. Weirdly, I know a set of four sisters (no brothers) all with the same middle name (two are even twins) and it doesn’t bother me at all. Mom has the same middle too, it’s an established family tradition and I actually think it’s pretty cute.
I know a set of siblings who all have the same middle name, too – 3 brothers and 2 sisters. I have always felt like I’d be disappointed not to have my own mn, but, as you said, name and let name, I guess.
I have specific rules about this for my own personal use but definitely don’t expect other people to follow them (and don’t think there’s anything wrong with it if they don’t).
My personal rules for first names are that the names either:
all start with a different initial (no repeats at all)
all start with the same initial
or 3) boys start with one letter and girls start with another
I don’t have any particular reason for it other than that’s just what I like for myself.
For other people I do tend to agree that two is a coincidence, three is a pattern. I think birth order matters too, it would be less “weird” I think to have kids with the initials (in birth order) L, E, E, P, E, R, E, E than it would be to have E, E, E, E, E, E, L, P, R. Then it would seem like you were going for an E theme but ran out of names.
I have never cared when I came across siblings who all share the same beginning sound, but a warning for parents who are thinking of doing this (intentionally or not), I knew a family which included two boys, [name_u]George[/name_u] and [name_u]James[/name_u], two one-syllable names that started with the same sound (unintentionally - the parents did not recognise the similarity until later). This came with two problems. The first - the boys’ parents were constantly calling [name_u]George[/name_u] [name_u]James[/name_u] and [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_u]George[/name_u], and the second - it was also harder for people to remember which boy was which when first meeting them, because they were so similar in sound.
Personally, I would not do more than two siblings/immediate family members sharing an initial because I think two is a coincidence/you just liked the name but more than that is a little tacky/overly theme-y. That being said, my dad is one of five kids and three of them are S names (plus C and M) and I barely noticed until I was a teenager. I apply this to parents + children too, not just siblings: I have a J name and I really like a lot of J names but I’ve decided I should limit myself to one J-named child.
also, I do find it interesting to add that the Duggar’s explained once why they used all J names, and it does raise an interesting point!
