Naming your son '<your name> Jr'

PixelFree

Kingfisher
Hey all.

I've noticed a trend where high status / wealthier men give their sons their own first name.

e.g. Donald Trump Jr, Mike Flynn Jr, etc.

I see it in America and here in Australia. Seems to be the more 'well to do' private school type people.

What's the deal with this?

I get the legacy aspect but to me it just makes things confusing and people close to you have to invent nick names 'Young Donald' etc. Naming your son after your granddad or giving him your name as his middle name sounds smarter.
 

PixelFree

Kingfisher
I guess in Australia we don't use the 'Jr' suffix.

We go something like 'Don' and 'Donald', 'Mike' and 'Micheal' or 'old Don' / 'young Don', etc.

I wonder if there is any cultural or historical story here behind this?
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
PixelFree said:
Hey all.

I've noticed a trend where high status / wealthier men give their sons their own first name.

e.g. Donald Trump Jr, Mike Flynn Jr, etc.

I see it in America and here in Australia. Seems to be the more 'well to do' private school type people.

What's the deal with this?

I get the legacy aspect but to me it just makes things confusing and people close to you have to invent nick names 'Young Donald' etc. Naming your son after your granddad or giving him your name as his middle name sounds smarter.
It's inferiority complex on the part of people who want to be royalty but don't have the class, the psychological stability, or the breeding. It's not a matter of creating a legacy at all -- unless that's what said rich morons tell themselves to get to sleep at night. Rather, it's flat out narcissism and forcing a child who might have completely different ideas about how to run his life to take up all your sins and all your deeds, robbing him in the most fundamental way of his own identity.

I mean, good grief, even the bloody English royal family doesn't do this anymore.
Especially these days, a king's birth name has as much to do with his regnal name as birth name does for the guy on the Papal throne.

George VI's full name was Albert Frederick Arthur George - he took the name George because Albert was seen as too Germanic and because he wanted to keep continuity with his father George V's reign and minimise the disastrous reign of his elder brother Edward VIII. Queen Victoria was christened Alexandrina. George VI's grandfather, Edward VII, was Albert Edward. When he eventually winds up on the throne, Charles is likely to take the name George VII in honour of his grandfather and, ironically, to avoid the bad associations with the other kings who've had that name - Charles I (executed) and Charles II (reigned during the Great Fire of London, had 12 bastard children and no trueborn ones, was succeeded by James II who was deposed in 1688 by a European cousin).

It's telling that only the obscenely rich and the obscenely poor think it's a good idea to name your kids after yourself. But at least inbred peasants have the defence of literally not knowing any better. Well, mah name's John Lee Peddemore, same as mah Daddy and his Daddy before...
 
More interesting I think is that names all originally had some meaning, and still do today though the languages have evolved so we dont see the word (meaning) aspect of the name.

It's pretty crap having a name which is just a seemingly random sequence of sounds. Just a bit too arbitrary for my liking. At some point I think we need to start having names that are more personal again.

Legal names are mostly for the purpose of the state so they can keep tabs on you and follow you in paperwork. This is what names have become now. Real actual names (social and psychological aspect of names) are not often fixed and can be varying depending on social context (Regal Names for instance), time etc.
 

NoMoreTO

Pelican
There is nothing wrong with this. I have seen this in my own family. When you get to four generations as I have seen in my family it is actually pretty nice, provides continuity, and is cool to have the IV behind your name. Maybe it is fake royalty copying, what's wrong with imitating Kings.

I can confirm there can be practical issues with mail, government documents etc. It was common to have confusion when someone called asking for someone, when there are 2 people in the house with that name. But the Muslims manage to sort it out.

Its also traditional & patriarchal. Feminist wives don't suggest naming your son after yourself. Prince Harrys' son won't be named Harry 2nd.
 

PixelFree

Kingfisher
Paracelsus said:
George VI's full name was Albert Frederick Arthur George - he took the name George because Albert was seen as too Germanic and because he wanted to keep continuity with his father George V's reign
You mean he could have gone with King Arthur II and chose not to? :)
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
I would avoid it if for no other reason than when your second son arrives (God willing) it's not going to put him on a very good track in life. Unless you're planning on naming all of your sons Pixelfree junior. Which would also suck.
 

NoMoreTO

Pelican
Leonard D Neubache said:
I would avoid it if for no other reason than when your second son arrives (God willing) it's not going to put him on a very good track in life. Unless you're planning on naming all of your sons Pixelfree junior. Which would also suck.
I'm a non Jr. - no issue here. First sons' had special privledges throughout history, maybe that is the way it should be.

This is a traditional thing, and modern society is really against it. They are against us shaping our son in our image so to speak. But if the Father is a good man, this is exactly what he should be doing.

All of this, "my kid is an individual and his uniqueness is for us to discover" is modern bull shit. Yes, we know each person is unique, but families also have an inheritance, an ethos, a tie to history and ancestry. Naming your child after a relative, or giving a JR. or II is a good thing.
 

PixelFree

Kingfisher
Leonard D Neubache said:
I would avoid it if for no other reason than when your second son arrives (God willing) it's not going to put him on a very good track in life. Unless you're planning on naming all of your sons Pixelfree junior. Which would also suck.
I agree. I have no plans to do this, just noticed it was something wealthy people did and wondered the history and reasoning behind it.

One thing I do plan to do is give strong, traditional names - not stupid newly made up names.

I find it interesting to study how elite/wealthy peoples operate (how they network in particular) as well as just historical customs in general.

If it's a thing, there must be reasons for it, and it's good to see them come out in this thread.
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
The problems really start when your name is 'Junior', and you decide to carry the tradition on.

Introducing your young son at the kindergarten:

Hi, this is Junior Junior!

Mmmkay. Who are you?

I'm Junior Senior!



If your name is actually 'Junior Senior' then don't even think about it!


Paracelsus said:
It's telling that only the obscenely rich and the obscenely poor think it's a good idea to name your kids after yourself. But at least inbred peasants have the defence of literally not knowing any better. Well, mah name's John Lee Peddemore, same as mah Daddy and his Daddy before...

Well, mah name's John Lee Peddemore, same as mah Daddy and his Daddy before...


Well, MAH name is 'Junior Senior Junior III', same as mah Daddy and his Daddy before... except his Daddy was just called 'Junior Senior Junior II', and his Daddy 'Junior Senior Junior I', and his Daddy was just called 'Junior Senior' Senior, of course!

Pretty soon you end up in hot P pursuit in a situation like this chasing after people that just have a total disregard for da law:



...


I agree though, it robs agency from the child and only some kind of narc would do that. That kid is forever doomed to follow in Daddy's footsteps. Do women do this with daughters? What would be the female equivalent of inheritance from Mum to Daughter? Can't think of one right now.

Naming your son 'Junior' is a relic from a bygone age when children were more dependent on parents, and parents could pull that shit without being accused of child abuse (which it is in a mild form).

It's a sort of emotional blackmail.

Well son, you will follow in my footsteps and become my living avatar when I die, or you will branch out on your own and forever be a non-working facsimile of the man that bore you from his loins. Tough choice ah? Some dilemma to start life with.



Do you just become Daddy's sidekick, a sort of 'Mini-Me' or do you take the road less traveled (and maybe even get disinherited when you change your name by deed poll)?


Years ago, children did not have the life choices they do now, no matter how bad your upbringing. Even a child born to shitty parents can thrive, if in an ideal environment it finds loving foster parents, takes time to study and get his head down, responds to positive influences and role models that steer them away from the abyss that is abundant pornography and drugs (to just name two evils off the top of my head). It's possible but unlikely of course. As much chance of being sexually abused as there is on winning the lottery of having functional adults around you.

But it's possible. Only a few decades back if you came from a powerful dynastic family you sucked it up buttercup because that was your lot in life for better or for worse, and usually for better, so it's not hard to see why most went along with it.

Today it's seen as crass; kind of inferring some kind of presumed social status that if you really have, you really wouldn't have to advertise. Bit like double-hyphened names. Another thing with double-hyphened names is that they usually sound clumsy, because you can choose your words carefully and even the words that make up your poetry, but you can't choose your surname, bit like you can choose your friends, but not your family.

Some double-barreled names roll off the tongue. (Scuzzi, that was the phrase I was looking for)

A 'Parker-Bowles' is eminently more presentable than a 'Rogers-Fanny'.

Ditto, a 'Lloyd-George' compared to a 'Hardleigh-Hadderchance'.

Then again 'Hardleigh-Hadderchance' is a pretty fucking cool last name especially if your first name is 'Bradley'!

Let's reframe and go back to our potential scenario of introducing our young son at kindergarten:

Hi, this is Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance!

(everyone just turns around and looks at each other like 'WTF?')

Top that motherfuckers!




Paracelsus said:
...

I mean, good grief, even the bloody English royal family doesn't do this anymore.
Especially these days, a king's birth name has as much to do with his regnal name as birth name does for the guy on the Papal throne.

George VI's full name was Albert Frederick Arthur George - he took the name George because Albert was seen as too Germanic and because he wanted to keep continuity with his father George V's reign and minimise the disastrous reign of his elder brother Edward VIII. Queen Victoria was christened Alexandrina. George VI's grandfather, Edward VII, was Albert Edward. When he eventually winds up on the throne, Charles is likely to take the name George VII in honour of his grandfather and, ironically, to avoid the bad associations with the other kings who've had that name - Charles I (executed) and Charles II (reigned during the Great Fire of London, had 12 bastard children and no trueborn ones, was succeeded by James II who was deposed in 1688 by a European cousin).
...

I knew it. I knew it. I bloody knew it! Paracelsus is a bloody Royalist.

I can see him there with his little Union Jack flag on a stick, waving it franticly as Liz passes by at 99MPH (and trying not to get run over), shouting "Go Liz, Go Liz, Go Liz" in a thick Strine accent (and with a half-eaten fucking 'roo sanger that is hanging out of the back pocket of his half-unwashed jeans, bit like Bruce Springsteen, but just not half-as-cool). And he has the sheer gall to call others 'peasants'! Go figure.

Talking of the Royals, there was a big brouhahahaha here recently about a song chosen by Harry and Megs - by The Stone Roses. They are a band famous for being quite anti-Royalist.

I'll just leave this here for ol' Paracelsus to get his knickers in a twist over:



Sending out a message?


Tear me apart and boil my bones
I'll not rest till she's lost her throne
My aim is true my message is clear
It's curtains for you, Elizabeth my dear




That wasn't the paricular song they chose, and besides, the reference would have gone over 90 percent of the population's heads, but still...
 
I would be against it.

It's probably because Donald Trump II wasn't up. Or the first grandkid would be Donald Trump the THIRD.

Though I understand the sentiment and there isn't much wrong against it - names are often part and parcel of the fashion of the times. Junior does not have the right kind of Conan the Barbarian jr. feel to me. The second and third - more so.....
 

Parlay44

Peacock
Gold Member
It’s a tradition of keeping family names alive. Women do it as well. Usually with a deceased grandmother’s or aunt’s name.
 

PixelFree

Kingfisher
Rigsby said:
The problems really start when your name is 'Junior', and you decide to carry the tradition on.

Introducing your young son at the kindergarten:

Hi, this is Junior Junior!


Reminds me of hyphenated surnames, which are lame.

Hi my name is Sarah Smith-Jones-Brown-Livingstone, I come from a long line of women with chips on their shoulders.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
Rigsby said:
I knew it. I knew it. I bloody knew it! Paracelsus is a bloody Royalist.

I can see him there with his little Union Jack flag on a stick, waving it franticly as Liz passes by at 99MPH (and trying not to get run over), shouting "Go Liz, Go Liz, Go Liz" in a thick Strine accent (and with a half-eaten fucking 'roo sanger that is hanging out of the back pocket of his half-unwashed jeans, bit like Bruce Springsteen, but just not half-as-cool). And he has the sheer gall to call others 'peasants'! Go figure.

 

Ghibellino

Newbie
If the goal is to signal good breeding in an Anglo context, you’d be better off using the mother’s maiden name as a middle name, possibly combined with another middle name. Throughout Europe, including Britain, it used to be popular to name the first child after the paternal grandparent of the corresponding gender, the second after the corresponding maternal grandparent, the third one after the corresponding parent, and so on; this rule is still followed amongst the more traditionally minded Greeks and Italians. It was, of course, never a hard rule: Pitt the Younger was the Elder’s second son.
 
Top