It's perfectly correct. There are two people named Trevor.

So the plural is named Trevors.

Are you trying to suggest the correct plural of named Trevors is Trevi?

They're named Trevi is completely wrong.

These are our Trevors.

Why would either one of them be named the plural of Trevor?

Nobody is suggesting Trevi but you.

They're named Trevors will never be correct. The plural of Trevor is clearly Trevors, but the context of yours is referring to a singular name. Trevor functions as a singular name, not as a plural noun. The name doesn't change because multiple individuals possess it. It's the same reason we'd say, for example, two cities named Liverpool but two Liverpools.

Both of their names is Trevor?

Them be Trevors

What if there's more than two Trevors?

This is the one grammatically acceptable time to use Thar

I'm upset.

When would you use both their vs both of their in this scenario? Your's makes sense but I would have put an of, and I'm wondering if it's just a waste of letters.

My interpretation: “their name is Trevor” is grammatically correct, but semantically means their collective name is Trevor, not that they’re both called Trevor.

“Their names are Trevor” is incomplete because the subject implies a plural while the object is singular. This could work if you were to list multiple names: “their names are Trevor and Trevor.”

Their names are Roberts Paulsons

Both are valid. One might be more likely to feel more natural to say depending on where that person is from or how they were taught, that's it.

They're all named Trevor.

Both correct, it depends whether you are saying,1 "They both have names and their names are Trevor" or "They both have the same name and that name is Trevor".

So the real question is are you talking about their shared name or both of their names separately?

Doug

DougDoug

DougDougDoug

DougDougDougDoug

Douglas

"Their names are both Trevor" would sound the most unambiguous to me.

The trevors are named trevor.