Sound Off: Siblings With Matching Initials?

Oct 18th 2012

When you set out to choose a name for your first child, you're looking at a wide-open field. Anything is possible. With baby number two, the landscape changes. Your first child's name shapes the space around it, so even the alphabet looks different. You have to decide: should the names have the same initial? Does a son named Finn rule out a daughter named Fiona, or does the shared F make them an ideal match?

You probably have an opinion on whether to match initials. Most of us do, instinctively, but those opinions are divided. Does it come down to just personal style, without any right or wrong, or are there compelling arguments in one direction? I'm going to lay out some of the common lines of thinking on each side, and I'm curious to hear where you stand.

Arguments in favor of matching initials:

A sense of togetherness. Shared initials represent the unique bond of family. Think of it like a team uniform, helping to define the group and foster oneness. It also gives older kids an extra connection to bond with their new little siblings. (Anecdotally, I see a higher rate of matching kids' names when the parents' own names happen to share an initial. If Brian and Bridget have always loved the link between their names, they may look forward to welcoming a little Brenna and Brayden to their special club.)

Coordinating style. Why have a jumble of sounds when you can have a matched set? We say our kids' names thousands of times, and it's nothing but good to take aesthetic pleasure in the way they sound together. Starting all the names with the same letter -- our favorite letter -- makes the sibset whole even more than the sum of its parts.

A sense of fairness. Choosing names with a similar sound and style sends the signal that we're treating all of our kids equally, and don't want any of them to feel apart from the others. (I see this factor most often when a family's first two kids just happened to share an initial. Perhaps Isaac and Isabella were the only names mom and dad could agree on; now they're expecting baby #3, and feel that they should continue the theme so that they youngest won't feel left out. Believe it or not, that's how the Duggar family ended up with 21 kids with J names.)

Arguments opposed:

A sense of individuality. Younger siblings, by definition, come later. They enter a family that has already defined itself, and they have to fit in. What message are you sending by treating their very names as accessories to your older child's first-choice name? Start from scratch and choose a name you love on its own, regardless of whether it makes a "matched set." Each child deserves that consideration.

Too much of a good thing is...too much. Kailyn? Fine. Kayden? No problem. Kailyn AND Kayden AND Kason? When you start down that path, its too easy to move beyond "coordinating" to cutesy and matchy-matchy, like an entire room decorated in the same fabric. Each name can end up diminished by sounding so much like the others. Besides, won't it create constant confusion?

This isn't about us. As parents, we think about our kids as a set. But they're not going to live their lives that way. In classes at school, in the workplace, wherever they go in life they're going to have to make their own individual impressions. Let's choose names as individuals, and leave our impulse to "coordinate" to home decorating projects.

What do you say, Baby Name Wizard community? To match or not to match...or to each his own?


October 18, 2012 11:28 AM

Personally, I'm not in favour of matching initials for the reasons that Laura mentions. I wonder if, like matching holiday sweaters, matching initials are more of an American trend than a British one!

October 18, 2012 11:32 AM

We are discussing this now.  We have an Elinor who goes by Ellie and our 2nd daughter is Emery.  We have started talking names for our 3rd baby.  I fought against same initials but my husband ended up naming both our girls.  Does the 3rd need an E now too?  Is it ok to change for a boy but not for a 3rd girl?  I say we choose our favorite name and not worry about the E.  A friend of mine that was the 3rd child say she felt left out with a J name and older brother and sister with S names.

By Jill
October 18, 2012 12:20 PM

We are firmly anti-matching: both DH and I have names that start with J, and we purposely avoided J names for our children.  I like Laura's reasoning on this subject.

I'm curious about families in which one child feels left out simply because of a different first initial -- did the older siblings make a big deal out of this?  Does a youngest child just feel left out more often in general, and the initial becomes a symbol for this feeling?  I wouldn't think twice about switching initials for a 3rd child, but maybe that's just my insensitve firstborn nature :).

October 18, 2012 12:52 PM

We have 2 children -  Molly and Miles.  I have to say - I never ever really thought of them as matching.  When we were deciding on a name for our second (Miles) it was really an exercise of process of elimination because we couldn't find many boys names we agreed on.  It amazes me how many people come up to me and say "oh cute!  molly and miles".  I just never thought of them as being matchy matchy.  For both kids I really was thinking more about the individual than the names together.  That being said - I do like the way they sound together I think they are complimentary in sound when I call them together.

We arent planning on having a third - but if we did - i would sure stay away from adding another M name - because at that point - it would be really purposeful I guess and cutesy-ness really wasnt my intention.

October 18, 2012 1:18 PM

I'm generally anti-matching for most of the reasons that Laura mentioned above. I do subscribe to the theory though that 2 names that match can be a coincidence but 3 is a pattern.

I have a daughter whose name starts with A. We have several boy and girl names starting with A on our list, so it's possible we could have another A named child. I have mixed feelings on this. I think I would prefer they have their own initials, but if the name that we like the best or fits the best happens to start with A, then I'm OK with it. However, if there was to be a third child, I couldn't do another A name, that would seem too matchy.

October 18, 2012 2:17 PM

We have some of both.  Our boys share a middle name. (And thus also a middle initial that my husband and I share as well.)

But for number 2, one of the names we ruled out was Samuel, because of fears of living in a household with a Sammy and a Timmy.  Too much -mmy for us!

October 18, 2012 3:08 PM

I am generally anti-matching for all of the reasons Laura lists.  

However, if there is a very compelling reason to repeat an initial I might do it.  But only if it was repeating an initial when there were already 3 or 4 in play.  A sibset of Polly, Sally, Mike and Patrick is OK, but I wouldn't do Polly and Patrick together otherwise.


October 18, 2012 3:20 PM

I'm generally anti-initial-matching, but generally prefer a more eclectic style in all realms of life, so it's not surprising that my naming preferences lean that way, too. I like when things feel like a harmonious set without direct repetition. (So, different shades and values of a colour, rather than exact matches, for instance.)

I used to be categorically against repeated initials within one person's first and last name, but over the years I've come to appreciate the aesthetic of certain alliterative initials. If I had changed my name upon marriage, my initials would be KK and I'm still not a fan of that one. In the future, I would name my child something beginning with a hard C but not a K - both because K is mine, and because it would lead to the initials KK. So in this case, I guess it's more of a visual dislike than an aural one.

However, I'm still not a fan of repeated initials within sibling sets. My parents intentionally gave my sister a different starting initial than mine and I've always liked how I "owned" K in my family. All it took was the letter K on something and it made it mine - from a letter on a necklace pendant to labelling a sandwich in the fridge to noting a dentist appointment on the calendar.

It happens that my current favourite girl's name begins with a C and I also happen to like several boy names beginning with C. If I have a boy first, I think that I would relegate any C name to the middle to save it for a potential future girl. Even if I end up not using the girl name, I'd rather have the choice because having two kids with C names is just not an option for me. It's way too matchy.

October 18, 2012 3:45 PM

Mom to 2 "B" boys, I'm in that same what-to-do-with-a-third boat. Well, what to do if the third is a boy I should say. We have a girls name we have not gotten to use, twice now, that we still love and it's got enough of a sound and stylistic matching quality with the boys, but I think we're leaning towards another B name if we have another boy. I like the coordinating style and togetherness reasons for (fairness doesn't so much come into play), and agree there is too much of a good thing (esp in the e.g. provided about 3 names that all start not just with the letter K but the sound "Kay") but I don't believe our potential set would overwhelm or sound too cutesy or singsongy. My husbnd and I do not have matching initials, nor do either of our names begin with B. And, perhaps funny enough with the individuality argument, our names were a dime a dozen growing up so we've chosen fairly unique/less popular names for our boys. Not Don, Dan and David like their great uncles;)

October 18, 2012 4:17 PM

I object to matching initials for a very practical reason: how do you label their stuff?

I'll have to ask my sister about being "odd one out", though -- my parents and I all had J names (in English, anyway), while my sister has an M. This is not something I particularly noticed growing up; our parents' stuff didn't need to be labeled to be distinguishable, and we didn't call them by their names anyway.

October 18, 2012 6:05 PM

I think that two in a family with the same initials is plenty. Beyond that I think it sounds gimmicky. I have a friend who has an "A" name and so do BOTH of her siblings...I like all of the names individually, but when I hear them all together I cringe.

I would prefer for all of my kids to have their own initial (especially for labeling things!) but probably not to the point of giving up a very favorite name.

October 18, 2012 7:20 PM

I agree with Karyn, I love the short hand of each person in our family having their own letter.  It certainly makes labeling things easier and I think it does help the kids have their own identity.

October 18, 2012 7:29 PM

I am an art teacher in an elementary school. When sibling names share the same initial or sound, I often mix them up. 

October 18, 2012 10:24 PM

I prefer to use different initials for my kids.  Both my girls names start with a hard "C" and although I didn't really think about it when I named my second daughter Katharine and not Catherine, I am really glad that they have their own first initial.  It make organizing the calendar and labeling things easier and I don't feel pressured to match a third daughter to the pattern as much as if they both had "C" names.

I thinks some of  Laura's comments about matching initials applies to matching with sibsets in general.  Although I haven't matched initials, I do probably worry too much about how the kids names sound as a sibling set.   Instead of just looking for a name that my husband and I like, I also want them to work with all of my other kids names.  For example, my husband really likes Lucy and we both really like Nell but I hesitate to use either of them because I wonder if they work as a sister for Katharine.   

October 19, 2012 12:15 AM

I am one third of a matching initial sibling set (J), because my parents really really just liked J names. If I'd been a boy, I'd have been a Julian. That was scrapped because they met a very nasty little Julian before my middle brother came along, but they picked a similar name instead, only the J stays pronounced as a Y even when the name moves to English speakers. This is I think key to avoid the great matchiness - though the initial is the same, the sound is different. Also, the styles are rather different.

If my middle brother had been a girl, he'd have been an Alice, though... so I think it was more coincidence rather than a determined theme that they ended up with 3 J names. 

My littlest brother was known to be a boy so they never had a girl name for him, but I know that they also considered Dorian, before dismissing it as too Oscar Wilde. So I think they really just legitimately ended up with the three names they liked best, which happened to be all J names.

(I'm actually glad they didn't do Dorian because it would have been too matchy with my middle brother's name being pretty much last syllable of Dorian...which makes me think my parents were not people who put a lot of stock into the notion of a sibset or thinking about matching.)

Anyway, I never disliked the matched initials and found lots of favorable things about it. We labelled things with our first and middle initial, but mostly it wasn't an issue, especially since there's a good bit of space between us so we weren't going to the same school or many of the same activities.

Anyway, generalizing from my experience, I think I'm on board with it if the sounds and styles of the name are otherwise different - I think it can tie a super-popular quintessentially American #1 name together with a super-obscure very foreign name, to have matched initials.

On the other hand, I think if the names are similar in style AND the phonetic starting sounds are the same AND the initials are the same, I start to roll my eyes... and I have a special dislike of matchiness for twin names. I think my practical consideration is that I think that if the names have similar sounds, I get easily tongue-tied, so I'd avoid that especially.

But I think if you had a Calla, a Cecily, and a Charles - no eye roll from me, and I would think it's charming to get them all the letter C to put on the doors of their room or refer to them as C^3.

October 19, 2012 12:54 AM

Yes, I agree that Calla, Cecily, and Charles is not a cheesy sibset, and I think that it is in the same vein as me being okay with the initials CK (where the C is hard) and not with KK. However, I think that I'd still assume that the parents were going for matching, even though I rationally know that this may not be the case.

I also think that a lot of siblings got J names in the '80s because, well, so many kids got names starting with J during that time! Growing up, I knew a sibset named J0nathan, J@red, J0shua... and Stephanie. The boys were all born within four years of one another and the daughter came quite a few years later, but her name got quite a lot of attention - way more than it would have in most other contexts, considering how common a name she got. Now I wonder if the J thing was intentional or they felt obligated to give the third boy the J and felt like they had an out when they had the girl.

October 19, 2012 10:04 AM

I don't mind the matching initials. We have 3 boys and didn't plan to name them this way, but their first initials, in order of age are H, J, K. My husband's is I and mine is they end up being HIJK. My husbands mom was one of 4 kids and with their parents the initials were ABCDEF. I think it makes us interesting

By mk
October 19, 2012 12:35 PM

I don't mind matching initials at all. I don't really even think of it as matching unless it's a very large family (21 kids with J names are obviously on purpose). 2-3 kids with matching initials though, I wouldn't think anything of it. Isaac and Isabella seem fine. I know someone who has a different first letter than her two siblings, and I don't recall her ever caring. I like tons of names that start with C and would have no problem using more than one.

I think names like Jack and Jill, or Blake and Jake, or Rose and Daisy, are way more matchy than two names that happen to share the first letter.

By Amy3
October 19, 2012 1:49 PM

I'd be inclined not to match siblings' initials, but if I really loved a name that shared an initial with a kid I already had, I'd probably use it. As people have said, just a few kids with the same initial versus a whole boatload does seem different. My husband and his sister share an initial, but I've never asked whether that was his parents just liking two names that start with J or intentional. I'm guessing the former. However, his family had friends where the parents and the three kids had J names. When this stretched to all the grandkids (as far as I know) plus the dogs I thought it had gone too far.

October 19, 2012 4:08 PM

Sometimes it works, but sometimes it feels pushed. 

There's a family at my church with an Aaron, Arlo and Aric.  Besides the way they forced the spelling of the youngest one's name to fit the pattern... I really struggle to keep it straight which name fits which child. 

With Michael, Matthew and Max, each name feels separate from its sibling.  While Duke, Derrick and Drake are too close and sound completely cutesy.

By Tuva
October 19, 2012 11:20 PM

My husband is from a "J" family and my MIL is sooooo proud of their coordinating names.  When we named our second child, one of the names on the short list shared a first initial with our first child's name.  I found it interesting that my husband struck that name from the list because, "kids should have their own initial."  Maybe my MIL shouldn't feel so proud of her naming skills?


October 19, 2012 11:36 PM

re: Aric

I actually know two people with that name. Both of them have Israeli parents so I know it as a Hebrew name, but when I looked it up, it seems like the predominant origins are Norse and Germanic. So even if they did use a less common variant to get the A initial, I still think that it's preferable to when parents change the first letter of a name to a variant that doesn't really exist anywhere else (for instance, Jinger Duggar.) Aric may not be a common name, but it's at least a name with a long history.

Edit: I just realised that this Aric is probably pronounced the same as Eric, while the Hebrew Aric sounds more like attic (with an r) than Eric. That does make a difference to my perception of it because now it really does feel like they just changed the spelling but kept the name rather than using a variant of the name, (if that makes sense.)

October 20, 2012 11:35 AM

I can see a positive side when to matching initials when it comes to labelling: if something gets passed down from sibling to sibling (such as school uniform), you don't need to change the label - "J. Smith" works fine for everyone!

A downside to shared initials between people with the same title in a family, which I always think of when I'm considering this question, is receiving mail.  Is it a big deal when you get an envelope addressed to "Mr J. Smith", who could be one of several people?

I'm not sure these considerations alone would be enough to stop me using a name that was otherwise great, though.

October 20, 2012 3:43 PM

Arik (it's usually transliterated with a k) is a nickname for Ariel.  The Israeli political leader Ariel Sharon is known as Arik, just as the current Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is universally known as Bibi.  So the children with Israeli parents you mention are most probably named Ariel.

October 20, 2012 4:06 PM

Nope, their names are Aric/k. I don't know if they were named after someone named Ariel, but that is definitely not their given name.

October 20, 2012 4:51 PM

I need help! I am currently in the process of adopting a sibling set from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The girl is said to be 3 but looks to be more like 5...knowing that leaving her orphanage and coming to a new country and a new family with be traumatic already, I have decided not to add to her trauma by changing her name. The name her biological mother gave her is Shekina, and I plan on calling her Kina. Her little brother, Godson, is about ten months old. He will be between 16 and 19 months when he comes home, and I don't think it will bother him much to have a new name. (I am not a fan of Godson.) I now need a name that goes with Kina! So far, I am thinking of Benjamin (nickname Benja, which is sonetimes used in Africa), Sebastien, and Christopher (family name, nicknamed Christo). Any suggestions? Somebody today told me I should pick something that goes with Kina, but I am not big on K names. Please, help!  

October 20, 2012 4:55 PM

Other names I like are Pascal, Emmanuel, Gabriel, Oliver...none of them seem right though. I've waited my whole life to name a kid. Now I get one chance, and it is limited by Kina! Help! 

October 20, 2012 6:36 PM

No matching for me. Matching the first initial, especially if there are more than two children, sounds too cutesy. Our children's names were chosen for completely different reasons and aren't similar in style at all.

A friend told me recently that a family therapist told her there is often a correlation between abuse and a the family matching their initials. It's not always the case of course, and not every family who matches is abusive. It's just something she sees in her line of work.



October 20, 2012 8:37 PM

arbolton, Congratulations! I plugged Kina, Benjamin, and Sebastian into Laura's Expert Name MatchMaker and got the following suggestions:

Alexander, Andrew, Samuel, Luke, Aaron, Adrian, Julian, Xavier, Tristan, Aidan, Nathaniel, Oliver, Antonio, Simon, Roman, Joel, and Ivan.

Do any of those strike your fancy? It seems like the tool didn't know what to do with Kina as those names match better with Benjamin and Sebastian. I think that Kina sounds good with those names, however, so I wouldn't worry too much about that.

October 20, 2012 11:55 PM

It's funny how tastes change with age. When I was little I remember thinking my friend Jessica's family was so cool because they all had J names (Jennifer, Jason, and Jonathan). Needess to say, that's no longer my style. Now I like a little more individuality among siblings.

October 21, 2012 3:39 AM

My sister and I have matching initials, and it was problematic more often than not. She's Katherine and I'm Kelsey. I'm younger, so my mom has a habit of starting to call my sister's name automatically and then blending it into my name when she realizes she's actually talking to me, so that I end up being called Kaelsey most of the time. Things got even more confusing when we adopted a dog named Kala (pronounced Kayla). Not only did the three of us end up being called by the wrong name half the time, but we were K, K, K when grouped. Not good at all. 

The note about having difficulties abbreviating names for the sake of calendars, clothing, initial decorations, etc. is completely on point. Our parents usually just included the middle initial too, or even just wrote the middle initial instead. Some people, our grandma in particular, thought the K & K thing was adorable, but I didn't notice much of a positive reaction overall. Between my sister and I, sharing initials was more of a point of rivalry than camaraderie. Since two of our three initials were the same, we both identified strongly with our middle names and how they set us apart from one another.

I would recommend choosing different initials for children, especially if you choose to omit a middle name. Matching initials might not have as much of a noticeable effect in names that start with softer letters, but it's particularly noticeable with a hard, uncommon letter like K. I would also warn against repeating initials when it could be offensive like KKK.

October 21, 2012 10:32 AM

Arbolton, I commend your keeping little Kina's name. With so many other adjustments ahead for her, I think it will be comforting for her to keep her same name. As for her little brother, while he can probably change to a new name very easily, Kina knows him as "Godson" so a new name for him would be yet another adjustment for her. How about choosing a name that is similar in some way to his birth name -- another name ending in -son or one beginning with a hard G? That would also give him continuity with his original name.

When we adopted 11 and 10 year old Amerasian siblings from Korea many years ago, we named the boy "Mike" -- Michael -- because we knew he was sometimes called "Ike", a name his American father had called him. For his sister, we chose "Jenny" -- Jennifer -- which begins with the J-sound as her 2-syllable Korean name does. The kids seemed to easily relate to both their own American name and their siblings' new name.




October 21, 2012 11:08 AM

Congratulations, arbolton!  How exciting!  I'll have to think on your name situation a bit before I can offer my opinion, but have you posted in the forums yet?  A lot of very talented and thoughtful readers tend to see those posts. 


October 22, 2012 1:22 PM

I'm not anti-matching.  I wouldn't set out to match initials, either.  However, if I already had two children sharing an initial, I would like any subsequent kids to have it as well.  It would bug me otherwise; I'm too pedantic.  Within reason, obviously - I wouldn't compromise my standards and taste if it was a difficult letter.  

I know a few families whose children have the same initials, and the names are all tasteful and distinct anyway - there's no loss of individuality, or gimmick effect.  I suppose it's once you have lots of kids that you're trying to fit into the scheme that it all gets a bit desperate and Duggarish.

The biggest downside I can see is post arriving addressed to one of many "Miss M Smith"s.  I don't think middle initials are used as frequently here (UK) as in the States, so it could be an administrative/privacy pain.

By EVie
October 22, 2012 5:48 PM

My sister and I share both our first *and* middle initials. The first I think was just chance (I was named after a relative, and my dad just picked his favorite name for my sister), but I think my mom did match the middles on purpose. Anyway, it was never a problem in the slightest—it was much more of a bonding point than anything else. We did go by nicknames that started with different letters, though, so that probably helped; we were also five years apart, and I don't recall labeling possessions as being something that ever happened in our household (maybe for summer camp, but definitely not to distinguish things within the house). My preference for my own kids would be to not match initials, but if I happen to like two names that start with the same letter, I don't think it's a dealbreaker at all (at least for two kids... like other posters, I think 3 becomes too matchy). Given the way things are going for us, it looks like our first boy will be a T, the first girl will be a J, and then if there's a second boy it might be another J... which is fine by me.

October 23, 2012 1:36 PM

@ arbolton

I am thinking that, if you are not fond of Godson, that you should consider a similar -son name. How about Dawson, Jackson, Bryson, Grayson, Judson, or Coleson?

October 23, 2012 1:42 PM

A few thoughts on this post...

1. My wife tells about a family she knew back in the day where all 4 daughters had the same FIRST 3 LETTERS of the name.  So all Mel's in the 70s and 80s.  so you can guess the names (before people got too "individual" about names)

2. I think the same initial thingy is OK if it is about 2 kids.  However, not if they are twins.  Then it kinda makes my eyes roll.  Kinda really.  And then i try not to groan.

3. In our house, we never had the problem of picking more than one kid with the same initial, but we DID have the middle name "rule" to get around... 

 I have the same middle name as my dad, which is my grandfather's and great-grandfather's name - all with the same surname.  So it kinda goes back.  So we had a son, and great, lets give him that middle name too.  That's the rule, and we like it so that helps.  But what to do with the next son?  It was unprecedented in our family.  Ultimately, we decided that if they all have the same middle and last name it gets kinda restrictive, so we decided against it (instead using my wife's maiden name as a middle - which works). So the new "rule" I guess is that "the first born son shall have that passed-down middle name".  (as an aside, the THIRD son got two middle names - both meaningful -  so he wouldn't feel too slighted later.  Being third means usually getting slighted on everything else!)

October 23, 2012 2:24 PM

Oh, and congrats arbolton,  I wish you all the best in the world!!

I'd lean towards just keeping the Godson name.  Even if it isn't what you may have picked.  The kid may grow into the name and it would be culturally relevant to the kid.  I think its nice with Kina.  Plus could use "Sonny" as a NN.  Usually I am more a fan of NA standard names, but i think it might be nice for this kid to have some historical significance to his name later.  Of course, i can say whatever i want since I'm not in that situation, and i get that.  Plus, if you were at all worried, given recent naming trends it definitely won't be the strangest name in his grade when he hits school, trust me!

OOOHHH!! now I LIIIKE Sonny!!!  Kina & Sonny.  Nice

By nmab
October 23, 2012 2:33 PM

When we considered names for my second son, we ruled out names with our first  son's  first inital.  However, they do have the same middle initial (different names), which we did on purpose.  So we both matched and didn't match!  I find that if peole match their first two children and not their third, I always wonder if the third feels left out.  Out neighbors matched on sounds for their three kids - two hard Cs and a K.

October 23, 2012 2:34 PM

That's such wonderful news, arbolton, and congratulations! Keeping Shekina's name and calling her Kina is an excellent call. I like your suggestions of Benja/Benjamina and Christo/Christopher. I also liked another poster's suggestion of keeping certain elements of Godson - as in Dawson, Gibson, or Grayson.

Wishing you all the best!

October 23, 2012 3:19 PM

My two kids have the same first initial - not intentional, just the two names we liked best (we have a boy & girl) & we weren't going to rule them out for that reason.  It was hard enough finding names that DH & I both agreed on - nixing a name because of a matching initial for the 2nd child would have been way too trivial in comparison to the other family issues & naming styles we were juggling.

I will say though, reading the blog post and many of the posts here, there is a BIG difference between a matching initial and a matching first syllable - many of the examples given have the latter (like Kailyn & Kayden).  To me, that is not the same thing, although many are lumping them together.  Jackson & Jacqueline?  Too much.  Jackson & Julia? No big deal.

October 23, 2012 10:31 PM

The only place I think it matters a lot is for twins--don't do it! Last name, first initial along with date of birth and social security number is a very common identifier, and if they're all the same except for one digit in the SS# (which are issued sequentially) you can run into some very big snafus. Unfortunately, this is the situation in which people seem MOST inclined to try to treat sibs as a set.

I also think the problem with "two is fine, three is too matchy" is that if you name the first two the same, sure as shootin' you're going to have a third and then have to decide whether to match or run the risk of the youngest feeling left out. I have cousins who are A, Z, A which I think works better than A, A, Z would have.

@arbolton--Congratulations! I second the suggestion of Gibson. This sounds similar enough to me, and I think Kina and Gib would both be very cute.

October 23, 2012 11:34 PM

My sister and I had the same initials growing up - KML. It was kind of a pain for keeping score in tic tac toe (we usually went with Kr and Ke in such situations). We always kind of teased Mom about it and said we'd never give our kids matching initials. Weeeellll, now I'm pregnant with my second girl, and just so happens the name we love has the same first and middle initials as our first daughter's name. Ultimately, turns out I don't care about the tic tac toe problem or my old perception that matching initials was a little silly. Now it's like a little tribute to my relationship with my sister that I'm giving my own two daughters matching initials. I'm a little worried about mixing up their names a lot, because my mom certainly did with us (my sister got a lot of Kris-Kelly), but I honestly think I'd do it some no matter the names! Just hope Ruby and Rosemary are different enough that other people outside our immediate family can keep them straight. 

October 24, 2012 1:51 AM

My kids initals match but not on purpose. When I was expecting the first,we came up with a list of girl and boy names. And I went with a name not on the list for our girl. It just happened to start with a C. When expecting the second, our boy, we just took the name from our list. Now I had wanted a different middle name for our son, but I ended up letting my husband pick. So they are both CAS. Clara and Caleb are different enough that I think it will be fine, also if there are anyone more, we don't like anymore C names, so it will be something completely different, starting with an E or a N.


October 25, 2012 1:05 AM

There is an organization blog that I enjoy reading and in reading Monday's post, I saw that the writer, a mother of three boys, all with names beginning with P, labels their things with P1, P2, and P3. While I'm still not a fan of matching initials, there is something about that system that tickled me.

(Her kids are Preston, Peyton, and Parker, which is quite close to Lynette's sons on Desperate Housewives, Preston, Porter, and Parker. Lynette also had daughters Penny and Paige.)

October 26, 2012 8:08 PM

As someone who grew up in a family where we were all "S's (including the pets), I swore up and down that I would never do that to my children.

Now I've hit the point (managed it with my two so far A & E) that if you include my first initial and my husband's first initial, all our favorite names are gone!

So I have the weird connundrum of all different intials, then add one in that is a duplicate at the end. Is that too weird?  

October 31, 2012 7:09 AM

Thank you to everyone who chimed in on my adoptive children's possible names. I will be sure to post on the forums. 

November 15, 2012 3:15 AM

It is always a confusion to name a baby. We all would like give the best name and the one that everyone would say wow to. The post that you have explained about the same is interesting to read and I have observed it though surprisingly, that what you have said is in fact very true. The name of the second child naturally comes from the name of the first child and it makes the process easier.

December 2, 2012 7:00 PM

My husband is the eldest of three.  They are A, M, A.  I have to admit, I never thought about the fact that he shared an initial with his youngest sister.  Maybe because the middle sister breaks it up, or maybe because his name starts with an "a" sound and is two syllables and hers starts with an "ə" sound and is three syllables?

Our son also has an "A" name, but his starts with an "ah" sound.  I really love A names and have been considering naming our second another "A" (though the boy name we love has an "aw" sound).  I guess if we did, we would have to give him/her a different middle initial from my husband or firstborn. (Girls it doesn't matter as much, I like vowel names in general).

Hubby is very aware of matching initals, he has cousins (4 of them) who are all "Br" names.  But my argument is that "two is a line, three is a pattern" - so it takes 3 the same to be classified as a trend (that's the scientist in me).

Come to think of it, but Mum and her brother are both "R"s, but again, first and third, so never thought of it before.

April 4, 2014 6:14 PM

Thanks Friends To share it with us it give us so much information that i am looking for.thanks again for ur great post.MAIDANA vs MAYWEATHER