Naming son after father

I would if I loved the name. At the very least I'd use it as a middle name

People just can’t win- too much imagination and you’re slammed for “trying to be yoonique”, name the child after a family tradition and apparently you lack imagination.

Yes, because there are thousands of great names between these two extremes!

Middle name.

People just can’t win- too much imagination and you’re slammed for “trying to be yoonique”, name the child after a family tradition and apparently you lack imagination.

Wow the mood on this has changed on Mumsnet, I'm sure I read about this on a thread years ago.

It's a Scottish and Irish tradition (and probably English too to some extent) a couple of minutes spent glancing at headstones or tracing a family tree or learning some history would make that pretty obvious.

I'm interested in the Roman numeral thing though, we're you allowed to register a child as e.g. John V?

It wasn't until a few years ago that I was told that when Americans call each other "Tray" they weren't really meaning tray it referred to the practice of calling themselves John James Jones then the son John James Jones then the grandson John James Jones . So the son was referred to as John James Jones the second or JJ or whatever but the grandson was called 'Tray' from the French for third!! (Alternatively my darling sister was having a massive laugh at my expense!!)

There are thousands of name to choose from. What a lack of imagination!

Definitely not. I love my husbands name but there is no chance I'd name our son the same thing, what a stunning lack of imagination.

I'd maybe use it as a middle name at a push.

Not as a first name, but I would for a middle name.

When people decide to slam the traditions of other cultures as egotistical and narcissistic they only show themselves to be small minded arseholes who think their own culture is the only right one. Fuck that. If you want to name your son for his father go for it.

Agreed! Some pretty offensive comments here, frankly. We’ve done this as it’s culturally normal for my DH, and I’m honoured to be part of such a longstanding tradition. My DS is the 4th in a line of first-sons-of-eldest-sons, and it’s a great connection to history and family!

Would I have chosen to do it without the tradition already existing? Probably not. But on my side, we have patronymics (middle name is that of the father, always), so there’s still that family link.

Up to you, obviously. Just wanted to put another view across :)

I compromised, and used my hubbys name as my sons
Middle name (he was happy with that)

I also have cousin and uncle with same name, and we have to
Call them 'big gary' and little gary'. (Even though little Gary
Is now 32!!!)

I'm not keen tbf. I know three generations with the same name, the youngest being 13 and the name is outdated for a boy of this age. Maybe a middle name?

It was common for daughters to have their mothers name in Ireland - probably because most people were called Mary/Margaret/Bridget.

I know someone who has a baby that’s named after him. They call the child a nick name version (so Jamie vs James).

My son has my surname as one of his middle names. My daughter has my mother's name as one of her middle names. I like having the connection to their roots embedded in their names. They both have their father's surname but only because they have half-siblings who already carry that surname and I didn't want to differentiate between them all with a different surname. DH would have happily had the kids be double barrelled. It was me who didn't want it.

Be very confusing in the same house. I have a family member named after me, it's confusing (but lovely too), we get mixed up all the time and we don't live together.

Also DS and DH have the same first initial, post is always confused now DS is old enough to get regular mail.

No don't do it. As a middle name fine, but not a first name.

My DP is Spanish and this is still very much the done thing over there. He has the same name as his father & grandfather. He has always said that he wants to carry on the tradition with his son. I'm skeptical to say the least...

My main concern is that if we had a second son then it'll very much make them feel like they're the second or the afterthought. Son 1 gets daddy's name and son 2 gets a random one.

I am not really fan of same names i would rather gave my little one his own

Not for me... Sorry

"So it is with surnames of course. To combine the two, from the same thin line, seems so very unimaginative and so uber-patriarchal. "
That's why I didn't.

It just seems so arbitrary to choose to name the child after one side of the family every time - so you're part of a long, traceable line dating back to someone who forms only 1/128th, 1/256th, 1/512th (and so on) of your ancestry. Drawing that line so brightly seems to push everyone else who has contributed equally to your lineage further into the shade.

So it is with surnames of course. To combine the two, from the same thin line, seems so very unimaginative and so uber-patriarchal.

There have always been cultural and political reasons for and cultural capitulation to patriarchy of course. Does that mean we are and should be happy for this to continue? And cannot speak of it from the viewpoint afforded by a different culture? I don't see that privelege operating unchallenged in other areas of life.

More practically and swerving the political angle in favour of all round celebration and appreciation, why not mix it up a bit? Surname from one side, given name from the other?

I know a family where the mother's maiden name, or the grandmother's, has traditionally been given to boys as a middle name, as one variation. Girls' names referencing maternal grandparents is pretty common too. Why not boy's names referencing maternal grandparents?

If you love dh name then go for it. It's a lovely connection to family. My eldest ds has a name that is a version of my dh name and so did my fil. Ds loves having the connection to his ancestors. He knows he's a separate person with his own identity!

If you're worried about confusion in mail, have a middle name with a different initial and use it for official correspondence.

My son loves the fact that he comes from a long line of first born sons with his name. (his dad is the first in multiple generations not to have it for complicated reasons,) He likes being grounded in a family tradition.

If it had been a name I disliked I wouldn’t have used it, but it’s a lovely name, and using it gave so much pleasure to a lot of people, so win/win.

I think it can be lovely if you come from a line of wonderful people you're proud to be connected to. It's far more common amongst in other cultures/countries like Ireland. When people decide to slam the traditions of other cultures as egotistical and narcissistic they only show themselves to be small minded arseholes who think their own culture is the only right one. Fuck that. If you want to name your son for his father go for it.

I never get why boys are given their dad's name. Silly and very confusing. My brother in law has the same name as his dad and his grandad and his great grandad!

My DH insisted that we name DS1 after him and a long line of his family members, complete with Roman numeral after . It wouldn't have been my choice, but I agreed to it because a) it meant a huge amount to DH and b) we decided on a nickname that he's always known by, so the two of them (three when FIL was still alive), didn't all have the same name. It has caused confusion in the past at airports and I have to be very careful when booking tickets. If you have the choice OP I wouldn't do this!