Please don't ego trip and name your kids after yourself...

[muck_a_luck]

First of all, I should state that it is my personal thing that I think naming other people the same name as yourself is just the lamest ego trip ever. It's bad enough that women have to struggle with a paternalistic naming system that buries their mother's names under their father's and forces them to choose whether to keep their own names or allow themselves to be subsumed under the identities of their husbands. Why create identity problems for your children (and yourself in the process)? You're family history arguments will never convince me. If this is an important thing for you, then we will never see eye to eye.

Even more annoying to me, though are the grown men I encounter, in their mid forties, say, who still go by III. Perhaps they are blessed with an aged grandfather, and I am happy for them, but otherwise, they need to fix their name.

Bear with me, folks, I may have said this before. But in my universe, it cannot be emphasized often enough.

Here's how it works. You can only be III if I is still alive. I is just John Smith. His son, II, is John Smith Jr. Son of John Smith, Jr., is John Smith, III. If (the original, eldest) John Smith dies, his son, formerly Jr, becomes John Smith. John Smith III becomes John Smith Jr. and everybody moves up. So for there to be a V, there must be FIVE generations *still alive.* Unless you are a monarch or the Pope. Then you can put all the roman numerals you want after your name.

The only person who is EVER Sr. is the widow. Sorry, eldest John Smith. It's your damn fault for starting this in the first place. You do not get to add a suffix to your name to fix the problem. You should have just given the kid his own damn name. Anyway, John Smith dies. His wife was Mrs. John Smith. (Yes, we are deep in etiquette territory now!) Now, her daughter-in law becomes Mrs. John Smith, when the original Mrs. John Smith's son, formerly John Smith, Jr., moves up the ladder. Therefore the widow of the original John Smith can't be Mrs. John Smith after her husband's death. SHE becomes Mrs. John Smith, Sr., to avoid confusion with the new Mrs. John Smith.

So, if you must name your children the same name as yourself, do it with some class people. Suck it up. Move up when someone above you dies. Don't tell me, oh, oh, how you identify with your original name, Jr. or III or whatever. Do you see what you have been reduced to? You identify yourself as a number in a series! The name doesn't really mean anything to you at all! Don't whine to me, I've already changed my name for etiquette purposes. I am formally Mrs. NK. You should have to follow the rules, too. That's what I say.

So, off you go, all you middle aged men. Change all your accounts to reflect your new names. Have fun when your sons screw up your credit report. And if you are a helpless victim in this, say the III who resisted family pressure to create a IV, then go you! Show pride in your unique situation, follow the rules, and at the same time make it your mission to warn those around you about the evils of forcing a family name on a poor, innocent newborn, who will be cursed with it for the rest of his life.

Oh! Maybe he could take his wife's name! :)

Comments

[green-grrl.livejournal.com]

I like the idea if honoring beloved relatives with a middle name in your child's name, but yeah, when somebody's yelling, "JOHN" at the top of her lungs, or the phone caller asks for John Smith, are they asking for hubby or kid? Just... don't do that people.

(Oh, you skipped the grandfather/grandson situation, in which case grandkid is John Smith II. Not quite as bad, but still, this is what middle names are good for.)

In good news, I do know of a few couples in which the hubby took the wife's name. And not because birth name was hideous, just because. I didn't change my name when I got married, and was mighty surprised when two of my sisters did. (Of course they're still married and I'm not....)

[muck-a-luck.livejournal.com]

Middle names are not so bad, since most people don't use them and plus, they are usually combined with a first name that makes their name unique.

[wyldestarr.livejournal.com]

It's bad enough that women have to struggle with a paternalistic naming system that buries their mother's names under their father's and forces them to choose whether to keep their own names or allow themselves to be subsumed under the identities of their husbands. Why create identity problems for your children (and yourself in the process)? You're family history arguments will never convince me. If this is an important thing for you, then we will never see eye to eye.

I LOVE you. *hearts muchly* Mostly because I agree on every count. Though I think middle-names are fair game if you're going to name a child after someone. I had such major qualms about marriage for years that I swore I'd never get married cause I couldn't bear even the thought of being dominated by anyone, much less a custom. Of course, now that I know I can keep my name and my sanity, I have absolutely no options for such a thing. Ah well.

[muck-a-luck.livejournal.com]

I went with Husband's name, because I anticipated the annoyance of people always *assuming* I had had the same last name as him and my children and how annoying it would be to always be correcting people. I think today, I would just keep my name. If people assumed - teachers or Small Boy's friends - I'd just go with the flow. :)