I have recently given myself a naming delima, and am hoping you and your beautiful, charming readers will be able to help.
My husband and I are due to have our first children on Sept. 18th, twin boys (YAY!). Early in my husband’s and my relationship, we talked hypothetically about names for children, and future expectations. Now that the pregnancy has actually materialized, I am reconsidering one of the options I originally thought was great.
We agreed that if we had twins, the girl(s) would have my initials, and the boy(s) would have his initials with the first boy being named after him. I am still happy with naming our first son after his father, but I am now thinking that giving both boys the same initials is too cutesy. My husband still likes our original name choices, but I wanted to ask your opinion to see if there was something we were missing.
Our original name choices were: David Lloyd Miller, Jr. (DLM); my husband’s name – non negotiable, and Duncan Lucas Miller. While I love, love, love the name Duncan, Lucas does not seen to fit so well, it is just the best “L” name I could find. Also, it may seem silly, but I am concerned as to the feelings of the child not named after his father, even though he was part of the first pregnancy, will he feel left out or slighted in some way? So, I am considering the name Adam Mac Miller (AMM). Adam, because he was the first man God created and Mac because it means “son of”, so his name would mean first man son of Miller.
For reference, other names we like are: Stockton, Bradford, and Maximilian.
What do you think; are the names David and Duncan okay together? Am I overreacting to think the child not named after his father will care? Is there a great name out there I am missing? I need help!
I have a friend who, as it happens, was in your exact situation: she was expecting twin boys, and they wanted to name one boy after the father but were afraid the other boy would then feel less special---especially since she was having a c-section, and so the birth order would be arbitrary. I'll tell you what she did, because I thought it was genius: they named the SECONDBORN twin after his father. And they gave the firstborn twin a significant family name from the mom's side of the family.
I'll just let the amazingness of that sink in. Isn't that GREAT?
If your husband is going to insist on the firstborn as his namesake (honestly, men and their names---you hardly ever see women doing this kind of thing), then I don't think using Adam for the secondborn helps. If you're using it mainly for its significant meaning, and its meaning is "first man," what does that mean when it's for the second boy? It almost seems like saying, "What's special about YOU is that we're naming you AS IF you had been the firstborn twin! Because being FIRST is what is special!" Instead of giving the secondborn his own specialness, it re-emphasizes that being first is what's important.
If you love the name Duncan and don't have a significant family name from your own side of the family you like as much or more, I think you should stay with Duncan. (I like Lucas with it, too.) David and Duncan are good together, and it follows the naming system you and your husband agreed on, and people love a little gimmick in twin names: you'll get a lot of positive reaction to the matching initials.
What do the rest of you think?
[Name update! 09-29-2008 Teresa writes:
I just wanted you to know that our twin boys arrived mostly healthy, but small on September 4th, and came home soon after in perfect condition. Your readers were incredibly helpful and my husband and I took a lot of what was said into consideration. Ultimately, we decided to split my husband's name between our boys and chose the names Stockton Lloyd and Duncan David; Stockton and Duncan. Neither boy is named exactly after my husband, and nobody shares initials, but they both have strong names that honor their father. We are very happy with the names (and the boys) and want to thank your readers for all their help, they really did make a difference.]