Hugh, just curious, is there any "back story" to either the "Hugh" or the "Maize" with your grandfather? Was there some meaning behind it to your great-grandparents, or was it "just chosen"?
Regarding whether the "IV" is required, I'm pretty sure there's no requirement. You can name him Hugh Maize Darnley IV, or Hugh Mayes Darnley IV, or Hugh James Darnley IV. You can also use any of those without any suffix at all. Or you can even choose to name him Hugh Darnley Jr., or Hugh Darnley VIII, etc. While there's some obvious tradition rules, I don't believe any of them rise to the level or legal requirement.
Speaking of the traditional rules--if you were to follow them, the "IV" would only apply if you name him Hugh Maize Darnley. If you name him Hugh Mayes, or Hugh James, or Hugh Susan, or even Maize Hugh, those traditional rules say "no suffix".
Have you considered "Dont Giva Darnley"?? :banana:
Regarding "Mayes", why not? There's a long history of turning common last names into first names, so this would fall in that line. So go for it--no, "Mayes" isn't a dumb name, even if it sounds a little corny. (Pun intended.)
Seriously, for a middle name--what is your wife's maiden name? There's a long tradition (although it was stronger years ago than it is now) of using the mother's maiden name as the son's middle name. That's how FDR ended up with "Delano" as a middle name--it was his mother's maiden name. If you happen to like that one more than you like Maize/Mayes, it might be something to consider--and I would think it would still make sense to use "IV" with it if you like.
