New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Hulda
Recently I've been sorting through family papers and I've gotten to know my great-grandmother Hulda (as well as I can, she's been dead for nearly 30 years). Everything I find out about her makes me like her more - she came over to the US at 17, lived with a difficult sister, worked at a factory (which was a terrible job at the turn of the last century), taught herself English, took in a neighborhood boy, etc. I want to use her name as a middle name - Katarina Hulda - but my husband isn't a fan. He is willing to use Daniel (her maiden name was Danielson) but I don't find that honoring.
So my question is: Is Hulda that terrible, even as a middle name? I love the idea of connecting my children with their ancestors and since many of my ancestors were not pleasant people it's wonderful to find one what was. Would you use it?
So my question is: Is Hulda that terrible, even as a middle name? I love the idea of connecting my children with their ancestors and since many of my ancestors were not pleasant people it's wonderful to find one what was. Would you use it?
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 1:37 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I've read through the long conversation below and I heartily approve of your reasons for using it.
Also, it's NOT that terrible. But I am more open to it because I like Hilda, and European names with gritty, heavy sounds.
Seeing the middle name Hulda, I would assume that there was some foreign ancestry behind it. And there is!
Katarina's great, too. I like the combo.
Also, it's NOT that terrible. But I am more open to it because I like Hilda, and European names with gritty, heavy sounds.
Seeing the middle name Hulda, I would assume that there was some foreign ancestry behind it. And there is!
Katarina's great, too. I like the combo.
1
It is a bit of a thunker. But I can totally see why you would want to use it - most of my family have names with ancestral stories attached and we all love it - and I like the combo; Katarina definitely lightens it up.
1
I think Hulda is lovely! It's rich and starchy. I definitely consider it usable as a middle name (hell, even as a first name!).
1
I dislike Hulda--strongly--but if you and your husband both wanted it, I wouldn't see anything objectionable about using it as a middle name. Personal meaning should trump prettiness and flow, at least for middle names, and with a knockout first name like Katarina, having Hulda hidden away in the middle wouldn't hurt any girl.
It's all moot, though, since your husband's not on board. I don't think Hulda's worth fighting for, so if I were in your shoes, I'd simply pass Hulda's memory down to her great-great-grandchildren and not worry about passing down her name.
It's all moot, though, since your husband's not on board. I don't think Hulda's worth fighting for, so if I were in your shoes, I'd simply pass Hulda's memory down to her great-great-grandchildren and not worry about passing down her name.
1
It's a rather ugly looking name which is a shame.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 3:10 PM
1
Yes, I would, as a middle name, if it was honoring. I don't understand why so many people place so much importance on having to like a middle name. I mean, if you're not going to honor or use a family name, then sure, you pick a middle name you like. But if you'd like to honor or to use a family name, that to me is so much more important than liking the name, that I don't understand the rationale behind declining to use it because one doesn't like it. A first name, yes, a middle name, no.
1
Agreed!
1
My grandparents talks a lot about people they used to know back in the days, and everytime one of them mentions someone named Hulda I want to chuckle. It's such a funny name. I don't like it at all, I actually find it quite ugly and it just seems to weird to me.
I would never use Hulda, but you probably don't have the same associations as I do. After all, Hulda is a lot more common here in Sweden than in the US. And honoring is always nice, so go for it if you can convince Xander. :)
I would never use Hulda, but you probably don't have the same associations as I do. After all, Hulda is a lot more common here in Sweden than in the US. And honoring is always nice, so go for it if you can convince Xander. :)
1
I'm with your husband on this one. Hulda is rather ugly, imo. It's like a feminine form of Hulk, lol.
1
I got a Hulk vibe, too. Big, green, and scary.
1
This is slightly mean but....
Hulda was a BIG woman. She most likely was hypothyroid and she also loved to eat and cook. So seeing you guys connecting hulk with her name makes me laugh. Hard.
Hulda was a BIG woman. She most likely was hypothyroid and she also loved to eat and cook. So seeing you guys connecting hulk with her name makes me laugh. Hard.
1
I think it's a very "heavy" name. It isn't very attractive, actually. I'm siding with Xander.
1
I can't side with Xander. My husband was in the position that he would be if he and vigdis had a daughter and vigdis wanted to give her the middle name Hulda, and my husband put up no objection to the family middle name I'd always planned to give a daughter. My husband didn't like our daughter's middle name. So what?
1
Question...
...would you have gone along with a name you despised if your husband was the one who wanted to honor family?
ETA: Never mind, I forgot about Will. I remember you saying it wasn't your favorite male name, but you used it because of a tradition in your husband's family. Fair enough.
...would you have gone along with a name you despised if your husband was the one who wanted to honor family?
ETA: Never mind, I forgot about Will. I remember you saying it wasn't your favorite male name, but you used it because of a tradition in your husband's family. Fair enough.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 5:13 PM
1
ditto
Plus, it doesn't sound good at all in that combo.
Plus, it doesn't sound good at all in that combo.
1
Yes, it is a very heavy and unpleasant name. It's frustrating.
1
Can I ask you a question?
Actually, this question isn't directed at you specifically, but to anyone who has used a name to honor an ancestor they never met: Why?
I'm not saying that in a snotty way, I'm genuinely curious. I understand going through family trees and becoming fascinated with the people in your bloodline, and I understand loving their old-fashioned names, but when it comes to honoring, I think it's always more meaningful to honor someone you knew and loved. Honoring an ancestor who died years before you were born always seemed strange to me.
Actually, this question isn't directed at you specifically, but to anyone who has used a name to honor an ancestor they never met: Why?
I'm not saying that in a snotty way, I'm genuinely curious. I understand going through family trees and becoming fascinated with the people in your bloodline, and I understand loving their old-fashioned names, but when it comes to honoring, I think it's always more meaningful to honor someone you knew and loved. Honoring an ancestor who died years before you were born always seemed strange to me.
1
Say you're having trouble choosing a name, out of a long list. And one of the names was borne by an ancestor.
That's why I'd use a long-dead ancestor's name. Simply to give my decision more "weight." More points in its favour.
That's why I'd use a long-dead ancestor's name. Simply to give my decision more "weight." More points in its favour.
1
I'd do it because I feel a link to my ancestors, and a name honoring one would be like a way to honor my family's history.
1
It's a way to pretend that you're going to mean something to strangers after you die
1
I would consider naming a child after an ancestor I never knew, but I don't pretend that I will mean anything to my descendants after I die. I may or may not mean anything to them, and I may mean something to some of them and nothing to some of them, and after enough time goes by, it's highly unlikely I'll mean anything to any of them. I don't care about that. That's not important to me. What's important to me is that my descendants will never have existed if it weren't for me. That is my immortality. And I would never think of any future descendants as strangers. They will all be my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren, my great-great-grandchildren, add as many greats as you want. They will be my children.
Right now I wish I'd had more children.
Right now I wish I'd had more children.
1
Or not.
I like history. I love connecting to the past. Walk into my apartment and you'll see that right away - just about everything in my apartment is used or has sentimental meaning. Using Hulda as a middle name is pure sentimentality. It's part of who I am, and part of who my husband is. My child will grow up knowing who she is named after and being told stories about her, which is fine. My niece is named Mary after her mother who was named after her grandmother who was named after her mother and none of them went/go by Mary - it's just traditional to use Mary. With us it's traditional to use family names. I like the feeling that the names tie my child to our family's past. If our child grows up to be totally non-sentimental and gives our grandchild the name Kalamazoo I won't care - it will reflect his/her values and beliefs. (Although I would find it silly.)
What a parent chooses to name their child reflects on their beliefs, values and ideals. It's an intensely private moment that shouldn't be judged. One of my brothers spelled out his name, another gave each of his children a name from a book. My sister-in-law named her son after her father who died when she was 2. Another person I know named their child after Yeats. My father insists that my middle name (Elizabeth) means woman of God's house, not God's solemn oath. It's so important to him that I don't bother correcting him anymore, it's what he wanted in my name. And therefore, he got it.
If it bothers people that I'm naming my child after my great-grandmother, so be it. I think it's silly that my brother spelled out his name with his children's initials, but I respect his right to do it.
I like history. I love connecting to the past. Walk into my apartment and you'll see that right away - just about everything in my apartment is used or has sentimental meaning. Using Hulda as a middle name is pure sentimentality. It's part of who I am, and part of who my husband is. My child will grow up knowing who she is named after and being told stories about her, which is fine. My niece is named Mary after her mother who was named after her grandmother who was named after her mother and none of them went/go by Mary - it's just traditional to use Mary. With us it's traditional to use family names. I like the feeling that the names tie my child to our family's past. If our child grows up to be totally non-sentimental and gives our grandchild the name Kalamazoo I won't care - it will reflect his/her values and beliefs. (Although I would find it silly.)
What a parent chooses to name their child reflects on their beliefs, values and ideals. It's an intensely private moment that shouldn't be judged. One of my brothers spelled out his name, another gave each of his children a name from a book. My sister-in-law named her son after her father who died when she was 2. Another person I know named their child after Yeats. My father insists that my middle name (Elizabeth) means woman of God's house, not God's solemn oath. It's so important to him that I don't bother correcting him anymore, it's what he wanted in my name. And therefore, he got it.
If it bothers people that I'm naming my child after my great-grandmother, so be it. I think it's silly that my brother spelled out his name with his children's initials, but I respect his right to do it.
1
My answer was more directed at finding the root of that "sentimentality." I mean I respect people's right to it and all.
1
Okay, I understand.
I actually believe that you do leave part of yourself when you die - at least the way you affected other people. IDK - it's an interesting concept of what is left behind and what isn't left behind, whether or not your life mattered to strangers. I don't much care if I leave a mark with strangers but I hope my family remembers at least part of me. (Although I know that at about 100 years I'll be nothing but a tombstone.)
I actually believe that you do leave part of yourself when you die - at least the way you affected other people. IDK - it's an interesting concept of what is left behind and what isn't left behind, whether or not your life mattered to strangers. I don't much care if I leave a mark with strangers but I hope my family remembers at least part of me. (Although I know that at about 100 years I'll be nothing but a tombstone.)
1
Very well said.
I'm afraid I'm coming off like a butthole in this thread, though. Again, these are just my opinions, and I don't think it's a bad thing if people do this. It's just always seemed like a strange and distorted thing to me.
I'm afraid I'm coming off like a butthole in this thread, though. Again, these are just my opinions, and I don't think it's a bad thing if people do this. It's just always seemed like a strange and distorted thing to me.
1
For the simple fact that you carry that person's DNA and you wouldn't exist if it weren't for that person.
1
blood isn't everything... edited
Blood alone doesn't bind a family. That is pretty obvious from Vigdis's stories of that particular branch of her family.
I have no idea of who my father is, and I only use the word father for lack of anything better. Sperm donor maybe. He gave me half my DNA, but so what? If he hadn't, somebody else would have, and how would I know the difference between what actually was and what might have been? Maybe I look somewhat like him. Maybe not. But I am not who I am today because of anything he or his ancestors and their DNA did.
Blood alone doesn't bind a family. That is pretty obvious from Vigdis's stories of that particular branch of her family.
I have no idea of who my father is, and I only use the word father for lack of anything better. Sperm donor maybe. He gave me half my DNA, but so what? If he hadn't, somebody else would have, and how would I know the difference between what actually was and what might have been? Maybe I look somewhat like him. Maybe not. But I am not who I am today because of anything he or his ancestors and their DNA did.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 3:32 PM
1
I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. I'm only going to tell you that if I were in your place, I would feel differently. Blood ties are very important to me. That's all that I'll say, because the subject was discussed when I made my "Meemaw and Pop Pop" post in the Lounge. I respect that not everyone feels the way that I do. I was just giving a reason that *some* people would name a child after an ancestor they hadn't personally known.
1
"But I am not who I am today because of anything he or his ancestors and their DNA did"
Yes, you are. If your DNA were any different you would be someone else. I'm not saying this in defence of using deceases relatives names or to disagree that "blood isn't everything" in regard to who you identify as family, but whether you like it or not your father's sperm donation very much contributed to who exactly you are and had his part of the family procreated any differently, you would not exist
Yes, you are. If your DNA were any different you would be someone else. I'm not saying this in defence of using deceases relatives names or to disagree that "blood isn't everything" in regard to who you identify as family, but whether you like it or not your father's sperm donation very much contributed to who exactly you are and had his part of the family procreated any differently, you would not exist
1
...but whether you like it or not your father's sperm donation very much contributed to who exactly you are and his part of the family procreated any differently, you would not exist.
This argument always puzzles me. If you were a different person, how would you know the difference? If you never existed in the first place, how would you know the difference?
It's not like a Parellel Universe version of you would be hovering around, telling you how your life would be different if your great-grandmother had been Polish instead of Irish. You wouldn't know. It wouldn't be an issue.
I can't help but think we make things sacred when they are really mundane and not that impressive in the grand scheme of things. Which is totally normal and human, but no less frustrating.
This argument always puzzles me. If you were a different person, how would you know the difference? If you never existed in the first place, how would you know the difference?
It's not like a Parellel Universe version of you would be hovering around, telling you how your life would be different if your great-grandmother had been Polish instead of Irish. You wouldn't know. It wouldn't be an issue.
I can't help but think we make things sacred when they are really mundane and not that impressive in the grand scheme of things. Which is totally normal and human, but no less frustrating.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 4:12 PM
1
As I'm reading this conversation, I'm reminded of my great grandfather, whom I never knew and whom my father barely remembers from his childhood. Grandma, daughter-in-law of said gr grandfather, had only a few nice things to say about him and several reasons why she didn't care for him, so those are the stories and opinions Dad, and then I, grew up with. My gr grandfather was a genealogist, not professionally, but he took courses in order to work on his own family history. I, having my own desire to research the history of my family, am very impressed with his research notes, documentation, letters of enquiry, etc. It's obvious he had a very fine mind, as does my father. I discovered that he always signed his name with a very distinct, fancy embellishment. So does my dad. It's a different embellishment, nothing alike, but my dad and my great grandfather are the only members of our family to do this, as far as I know. Dad developed his embellishment as a young man. He didn't know anything about gr grandfather's embellishment and was surprised by it. It could be complete coincidence, but I'm tickled every time I discover such similarities.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 4:51 PM
1
You wouldn't know the difference, but "you" wouldn't be living at all because your unique DNA never came to be. Like I said, it was never a defence for justifying using a long removed relative's name, I just wanted to point out that yes, your parents DNA matters in who you are right now and matters in who your kids are/will be. You can't really say, I'd be the same person no matter who my father was because that's simply not true. It's all just butterfly effect - no one really knows what "could have been" but it's always inherently different than what IS. It's a little too philosophical really for me to even truely get my head around but I'm not placing any more importance on one side or the other (reality vs. "parallel universe") I'm simply stating that our conscious exists because of very delicate factors and those factors interest me enough to look upon past relative with wonder.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 4:31 PM
1
I didn't say I'd be the same person. I might be- oh, I don't know- Misty Q. Horowitz if my DNA were different, but then Misty Q. Horowitz might wonder who she might be if her family tree forked in a different way, and it would go on and on and on. It would be a different "You", or the "You" might be a gaping void, but in the end, it wouldn't matter. If the "You" you are now didn't ponder these questions, another "You" would. Or something. God, I need a drink after wrapping my head around this one, LOL.
1
It's pretty simple to me. I wouldn't exist if it weren't for my parents and all of my other ancestors. I owe my existence to them. Period.
Perhaps what RoxStar was trying to say is that she believes that her biological father had no hand in creating her *personality*. Personally, I don't hold that biology has nothing to do with personality, but many do.
Perhaps what RoxStar was trying to say is that she believes that her biological father had no hand in creating her *personality*. Personally, I don't hold that biology has nothing to do with personality, but many do.
1
Yeah, but again, my point is that if I didn't exist, I wouldn't know one way or the other. I'm happy, but if I were never born it wouldn't make much difference...and I know that sounds depressing, but it really isn't. At least not to me.
1
I'm sorry I never meant that you said that, that was just the impression that I got from RoxStar's post that prompted me to respond in the first place. Yes, it's all convoluted and subjective to the "you" in each scenario but that's why it's interesting to me. Modern (19 and 20th century) history is intriguing to me already so considering my relatives as pawns in the overall game of "chance" is even more fascinating and has a certain amount of sentiment that appeals to me
1
I realized you were talking about what Rox Star said after I wrote my post. Sorry about that. :)
I love history too, but...well...my family just isn't that interesting, LOL. I'd much rather read about artists, writers, musicians, activists, etc. People who contributed something bigger than, "...and then they got married and had babies and moved to Saginaw!" ;)
Actually, that's not entirely true; there ARE some interesting people in my ancestry. Still, none of them changed the world or did anything groundbreaking.
I love history too, but...well...my family just isn't that interesting, LOL. I'd much rather read about artists, writers, musicians, activists, etc. People who contributed something bigger than, "...and then they got married and had babies and moved to Saginaw!" ;)
Actually, that's not entirely true; there ARE some interesting people in my ancestry. Still, none of them changed the world or did anything groundbreaking.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 5:07 PM
1
"Still, none of them changed the world or did anything groundbreaking"
Sure they did! They contributed to your coming into being :)
That's the thing though, information about famous artists, writers, musicians, etc. is generally easily accessible while there is little literature to chronicle the lives of my relatives, so there's more mystery there. Even so, I'm more interested in the everyday mundanity that is life in different decades - I relate more :)
Sure they did! They contributed to your coming into being :)
That's the thing though, information about famous artists, writers, musicians, etc. is generally easily accessible while there is little literature to chronicle the lives of my relatives, so there's more mystery there. Even so, I'm more interested in the everyday mundanity that is life in different decades - I relate more :)
1
...but I'm not remarkable. I am an average Jane who works for her money and has a good time, but that's not interesting, let alone groundbreaking. I don't care about being interesting, though. Too much work.
I relate to everyday life too, but just because I relate to something that doesn't mean it will interest me if I read about it. I would much rather read about Picasso than my great-great-great Uncle Pierre. Nothing against Pierre, but Picasso lived a life that broke the mold. Pierre...had kids and lived in Minnesota. Yup.
I relate to everyday life too, but just because I relate to something that doesn't mean it will interest me if I read about it. I would much rather read about Picasso than my great-great-great Uncle Pierre. Nothing against Pierre, but Picasso lived a life that broke the mold. Pierre...had kids and lived in Minnesota. Yup.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 5:36 PM
1
To each their own :)
Obviously I don't expect what interests me to interest everyone else. I'm just here to represent for those who'd rather learn about great-great-great uncle Pierre :)
Obviously I don't expect what interests me to interest everyone else. I'm just here to represent for those who'd rather learn about great-great-great uncle Pierre :)
1
Heh-heh...I pretty much told you all there is to him. Grandma says he was a nice guy.
Your viewpoint is just as valid as mine, so it's all good.
Your viewpoint is just as valid as mine, so it's all good.
1
This is why I wish I had a holosuite ala Star Trek. I'd have infinite fun recreating historical events with slight twists to see what would happen - but the problem would be that it would still be inaccurate because little things can change history. (I spend waaaay too much time thinking about things like that.)
In the end, you're right. My great-great-great grandmother had seven kids out of wedlock, most likely by different men. I have no idea who my great-great-great grandfather was or his life. While I carry his genes in me and I exist because of him there really isn't any other connection.
In the end, you're right. My great-great-great grandmother had seven kids out of wedlock, most likely by different men. I have no idea who my great-great-great grandfather was or his life. While I carry his genes in me and I exist because of him there really isn't any other connection.
1
See, that doesn't impress me. Immortality, DNA, and all that. I know that makes me the odd one out, but I don't mind. I just don't get it.
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 3:00 PM
1
ditto
Whenever everybody says "middle names aren't important" I don't get it. If they aren't important, why bother agonizing over them at all? And plugging in a name you dislike just because it happened to belong to a dead ancestor you never knew, and don't know the full aspect of her personality and life even now, is just pointless.
Whenever everybody says "middle names aren't important" I don't get it. If they aren't important, why bother agonizing over them at all? And plugging in a name you dislike just because it happened to belong to a dead ancestor you never knew, and don't know the full aspect of her personality and life even now, is just pointless.
1
I don't dislike the name, my husband does. I like the name and I like the name's meaning.
Plus, everyone is goofy and unusual in their own ways. My brother spelled out his name with his kids - Brianna, Emma, Natalie, Lily - Ben L. I'm honoring a cool woman who had a neat history - pretty similar to someone who honors a historical poet or writer that they didn't know. And that is done all the time.
Plus, everyone is goofy and unusual in their own ways. My brother spelled out his name with his kids - Brianna, Emma, Natalie, Lily - Ben L. I'm honoring a cool woman who had a neat history - pretty similar to someone who honors a historical poet or writer that they didn't know. And that is done all the time.
1
Hmm. For me the difference, and it's not much of a difference, is that historical figures like composers and poets and writers tend to represent something larger and more abstract than themselves, and something more specific and (IMO) less self-deluding than "family history." They become avatars for things like... I dunno, for example Haydn for me is sort of like the greek god of sunshine happiness. And if I were to honor an old ancestor, even if it were one who had a good life, it would be like honoring the greek god of please-let-me-stay-important-I-dont-want-to-die-can-I-earn-my-way-to-not-dying-by-living-well?.
I say this as someone who used to comb obsessively over family trees and want to honor ancestors from generations and generations ago. I'm talking about my own former feelings.
I say this as someone who used to comb obsessively over family trees and want to honor ancestors from generations and generations ago. I'm talking about my own former feelings.
1
See I find that boring
1
Are you saying that you don't find me as fascinating as those works of art? That's okay. I find myself every bit as fascinating. LOL
I do think that most people find themselves fascinating, though.
I do think that most people find themselves fascinating, though.
1
That is exactly why you will always hear someone going on about researching their own family, and never a total stranger's.
1
*nods head in agreement.*
Ugh
Ugh
This message was edited 7/30/2012, 7:17 PM
1
Got it. :-D
The people I'm most interested in honoring - Helen (she was missionary who went to India and spent thirty years there, wrote a poem about how idiotic it was that female missionaries were told to get married), Judie (A doctor in the 1950s, basically gave the finger to that time period and did what she wanted) and Hulda (came to the US at 17) all have one thing in common: They lived with courage, did what they wanted to do and refused to allow expectations to dictate their life. Kinda of the way I wish I was - and very much the way I hope my daughter will be. (Oddly enough there aren't very many men I want to honor, just my grandfather Leonard who was a very kind man, and partly want to honor my dad. Mixed feelings on the latter.)
The people I'm most interested in honoring - Helen (she was missionary who went to India and spent thirty years there, wrote a poem about how idiotic it was that female missionaries were told to get married), Judie (A doctor in the 1950s, basically gave the finger to that time period and did what she wanted) and Hulda (came to the US at 17) all have one thing in common: They lived with courage, did what they wanted to do and refused to allow expectations to dictate their life. Kinda of the way I wish I was - and very much the way I hope my daughter will be. (Oddly enough there aren't very many men I want to honor, just my grandfather Leonard who was a very kind man, and partly want to honor my dad. Mixed feelings on the latter.)
1
what is self-deluding about family history?
Anyone can claim to honor a famous composer but there are only so many people who can honor your family tree.... so why not?
Anyone can claim to honor a famous composer but there are only so many people who can honor your family tree.... so why not?
1
Well for me it was... I just didn't know anything about any of those people, and they knew nothing about me. I can be aware that they had some quality or another, but it means something only abstractly. It would actually mean very little. Once your family tree extends beyond people you knew personally, or beyond people who knew people you know personally, it becomes basically arbitrary. This sperm and this egg... would have been different ten minutes later. It probably would have changed your family's direction, but you've got no way of knowing how, and no real business being interested, kwim?
Whereas with composers and whatnot, I have a very tight, personal relationship with what I would be representing through honoring them. The fact that other people can honor them and can't honor my ancestors... does not cause any blips on my radar at all.
Whereas with composers and whatnot, I have a very tight, personal relationship with what I would be representing through honoring them. The fact that other people can honor them and can't honor my ancestors... does not cause any blips on my radar at all.
1
but I am interested :)
Most of those family names I'd consider for honoring I've chosen because to me they represent not so much the person individually, but the relationships within that whole family. Like, I never met my maternal grandmother but I've ALWAYS wished that I had. No, I don't know that much about her personally but I know that my mother and grandfather really loved her and she is what connects us all - the "catalyst" so to speak - so using her name is sort of a way for me to honor all three of them, in addition to my aunts, whom I'm also close with
Most of those family names I'd consider for honoring I've chosen because to me they represent not so much the person individually, but the relationships within that whole family. Like, I never met my maternal grandmother but I've ALWAYS wished that I had. No, I don't know that much about her personally but I know that my mother and grandfather really loved her and she is what connects us all - the "catalyst" so to speak - so using her name is sort of a way for me to honor all three of them, in addition to my aunts, whom I'm also close with
1
I love that - 'catalyst.' I feel the exact same way.
1
That makes sense.
Here's the odd thing for me:
I have no problem honoring Judie, Hulda and Helen because they embody qualities I like. I do have problems honoring my dad and people I know personally - because I know them too well. It's almost as if I would be honoring all of the person, including the bad. With the three above I'm honoring the spirit of adventure and doing what you want, so perhaps it's not strictly family honoring. I don't know - this has been a fascinating conversation that has made me do a lot of thinking.
Here's the odd thing for me:
I have no problem honoring Judie, Hulda and Helen because they embody qualities I like. I do have problems honoring my dad and people I know personally - because I know them too well. It's almost as if I would be honoring all of the person, including the bad. With the three above I'm honoring the spirit of adventure and doing what you want, so perhaps it's not strictly family honoring. I don't know - this has been a fascinating conversation that has made me do a lot of thinking.
1
Right, I feel like you have a closer relationship with your ancestors than most people just because of circumstance. But that might not be true, and it's not my place to judge anyway. Any opinion anyone has is going to come from their own experience, and I just know that once I figured out my motives for being family tree obsessed I got a little disenchanted.
1
Same here. A while ago, I tried starting a family tree and was enjoying it until I realized a lot of it had to do with fear of death. Then it got to a point when the people in my line were nothing more than names on a piece of paper, and that I knew nothing about them- not their likes and dislikes, their hobbies, their favorite color, nothing . I felt no connection to those people other than, "Well, they bumped uglies and made more people who bumped uglies until that made me . La dee da."
I know that one day I will just be a name on a piece of paper, if I'm lucky. But you know what? That's all right. I'm enjoying what I have now, and that's already more than what anyone can hope for. Immortality is a great idea, but isn't there for most people.
I know that one day I will just be a name on a piece of paper, if I'm lucky. But you know what? That's all right. I'm enjoying what I have now, and that's already more than what anyone can hope for. Immortality is a great idea, but isn't there for most people.
1
Every human being is flawed. If I had a son tomorrow, his middle name would be Michael, despite the fact that my dad has done some cowardly, messed up things. There is "bad" in him, but that's part of what makes him beautiful. The whole package, so to speak.
1
I think I just have issues with honoring my dad. I don't mind honoring my father-in-law, my mother-in-law, my brother or even my mother (and she was NOT that great of a mom when I was younger) but I do have problems with my dad. Kinda of odd. Thankfully, though, it's unlikely that we'll have more than one child and we've already have the names set in stone - Judith Cecilia and Thomas Alan or Michael Alan. (Depends on whether or not someone uses Thomas or Michael first, highly likely.)
1
Nothing wrong with that. Like you said, this has become quite an interesting thread, and it's giving people something to think about in terms of honoring and family connection.
1
Exactly
I don't see what the difference is in choosing the name of an interesting character in your family tree or choosing the name of an interesting anyonelse. Other than the fact that you know, you're honoring your family instead of some other arbitrary person with no connection to you
I don't see what the difference is in choosing the name of an interesting character in your family tree or choosing the name of an interesting anyonelse. Other than the fact that you know, you're honoring your family instead of some other arbitrary person with no connection to you
1
And before this denigrates into "You're bossing your husband around" I'd like to say that our first daughter will have the middle name Cecilia - chosen by him - that I dislike.
1
Yea I think it's a lil goofy too
1
In several cases...
...I've been told growing up, or later learned, so much about ancestors who died before I was born that I feel as though I do know them quite a bit; I feel connected. I've read journals, letters, published articles, family-made biographies, research notes, etc. I have come to admire various qualities they have, how they lived their lives, how they endured difficult times, etc. They are a part of me, where I come from.
...I've been told growing up, or later learned, so much about ancestors who died before I was born that I feel as though I do know them quite a bit; I feel connected. I've read journals, letters, published articles, family-made biographies, research notes, etc. I have come to admire various qualities they have, how they lived their lives, how they endured difficult times, etc. They are a part of me, where I come from.
1
Exactly. I do know them, or the best I can. Naming a child after a writer, poet, historical figure, etc is perfectly okay - why is naming you child after an ancestor you know about any different?
1
Well, I wouldn't name a child after a historical figure or a writer either, but that's neither here nor there.
1
I'm not sure how to explain.
First and foremost, I'm the child with the most knowledge of my ancestors. This isn't by choice, I live nearest to where my parents grew up (four hours) and have been caught in the crossfire between my aunt and my mother. I've heard both their stories and their accounts of growing up and have really seen they lived through. Their childhood was not pleasant. My grandfather was a sick man and my grandmother was a very selfish woman who didn't really love her kids. The only love my aunt and mother got was from their Aunt June and their grandmother, Hulda. It's very rare that I hear my mother speak of any of her relatives with love and respect - most of the time she refuses to even talk about them. But with Hulda she has a deep love and respect for her. That and the fact that I've really gotten to know Hulda through what she wrote and the stories she told has made me love her. She didn't have an easy life - she had an abusive, alcoholic husband, a son with brain damage (caused by a drunk doctor) and she lost her oldest son in WWII. Yet she managed to be this loving, amazing woman and gave my mom and her sister enough love to see them through childhood. So while I didn't know the woman personally I do see her legacy and I'm thankful for it.
Does that make any sense?
First and foremost, I'm the child with the most knowledge of my ancestors. This isn't by choice, I live nearest to where my parents grew up (four hours) and have been caught in the crossfire between my aunt and my mother. I've heard both their stories and their accounts of growing up and have really seen they lived through. Their childhood was not pleasant. My grandfather was a sick man and my grandmother was a very selfish woman who didn't really love her kids. The only love my aunt and mother got was from their Aunt June and their grandmother, Hulda. It's very rare that I hear my mother speak of any of her relatives with love and respect - most of the time she refuses to even talk about them. But with Hulda she has a deep love and respect for her. That and the fact that I've really gotten to know Hulda through what she wrote and the stories she told has made me love her. She didn't have an easy life - she had an abusive, alcoholic husband, a son with brain damage (caused by a drunk doctor) and she lost her oldest son in WWII. Yet she managed to be this loving, amazing woman and gave my mom and her sister enough love to see them through childhood. So while I didn't know the woman personally I do see her legacy and I'm thankful for it.
Does that make any sense?
1
The emotions behind it make sense. I still think honoring should be for people you knew personally, but that's just how I look at it. If it's something you want to do, it doesn't matter what a bunch of strangers on the internet think.
1
Here's the thing:
I do see it as honoring people I know personally. I think it would mean more to my mother to have a granddaughter named after her grandmother than it would to have a grandchild named after her. Ditto for my dad - I know he'd find it much more meaningful to have a child named after his sister and his dad than himself. So I do it in part to honor relatives I know.
I do see it as honoring people I know personally. I think it would mean more to my mother to have a granddaughter named after her grandmother than it would to have a grandchild named after her. Ditto for my dad - I know he'd find it much more meaningful to have a child named after his sister and his dad than himself. So I do it in part to honor relatives I know.
1