Dear Judy,
I’m in real trouble. Some months ago, my husband’s sister died — I’m personally convinced she killed herself, but my mother-in-law keeps insisting it was “a gun accident.” I liked her in a way, but my sister-in-law was a disturbed woman. She couldn’t hold down a job for long, she maxed her credit cards on high-end purchases, some of them for the guys she dated who were always real losers.
Okay, so now my mother-in-law is informing me that the baby girl I am going to have at the end of August should be named after my late sister-in-law. I’m not superstitious (well not completely…), but I don’t think it’s a great idea to burden a new kid with the name of a tragic person who lived a senseless life.
My husband says I’m cold and selfish; he’s told me his mother is hurting and needs consolation. What do you think?
Mimi in Baltimore
Dear Mimi,
You’re right about our natural reluctance to name kids after tragic figures (I, for instance, have personally never met a baby named Lear). In fact I think you’re right about the whole thing.
Tell your mother-in-law that between pregnancy and grief, you are too rattled to come to any decision concerning the baby’s name. That will avoid a fight for at least three months. Then follow your own instincts. Name the child whatever you want. Do not consider the middle name alternative; that’s just waffling, and besides, superstition should be respected at times.
Your mother-in-law will probably be so happy over the birth, she won’t quibble. Your husband too.
Thanks for writing
Judy
