What do you think about naming a boy after his Dad?

[PizzaHerbs]

Just wondering. If I have a boy I know dh would like this and I like his name but would he be forever xxxjunior?

Has anyone done this?

A few of my relatives have done it plus my MiL was given the same name as her Mother. All of them use their middle name as their first name. So if my MiL was actually called Anastasia Louise, she'd just be called Louise apart from in official stuff. The side of my family who do it are Irish as is my MiL.

I don't like it but then my ds is named after 3 of his Great Grandfathers and Dh's favourite uncle (his first name), his maternal Grandfather/ a Great Uncle (his first middle name) and has my maiden name as his second middle name so that dislike is a bit irrational.

I did once see an episode of don't tell the bride a documentary of some sort, where the mum was Layla and her toddler DD was also Layla. I found it quite refreshing tbh as it's usually only men who do this ime.

I don't like it and would never agree to it. It seems like ego stroking.

I'm not keen personally. It makes the child seem more like a legacy than an individual. They are not a miniature of their father, they are their own person and deserve their own name. That said, if someone wanted to do it with their own son, I wouldn't care much. I'd just think it was a bit naff, sad and likely confusing

I really dislike it and the ones I know who insist on it have really outdated names that you usually hear are dying out! I know 2 x baby Brian, 2 x baby Terry and a baby Walter....

We do this in our family and my DS is the umpteenth. My DB uses his middle name, my dad a shortened form, my DGF used a traditional nickname (starts with a different letter, think Bill/William), my GGF used the full name.
My DB has two girls so we got custody of the name and my DS has the full name. He just loves that his DGF and uncle have the same name. He feels very special!

It's lame. A child is not a clone of their parents. Let them be their own person, with their own unique name. I don't like using family names either. The poor kid shouldn't have to live up to expectations set by great uncle Graham, or whoever.

The xxx junior thing is a horrible americanism and sounds very pompous. Like the naming equivalent of people who give their perfectly normal barratt estate home a grand name like "Autumn Lodge" or something.
This really made me laugh

My dh hates his name but our son is named after his grandad who died when I was pregnant. To most people he is just divergent son but to family members on dh side he is wee divergent son - we love it. Family members on my side weren't keen but can't imagine him called anything else now.

Not ok unless the father is dead or it is a family tradition.

"child is not a clone of their parents. Let them be their own person, with their own unique name"

I am baffled by this. Why on earth would a child not be their own person because they don't have a "unique" name?

Totally agree fruitlovingmonkey. It's lame.

Peter Junior might as well be Just Peter Again, or Yet Another Peter, or Peter Because He's Only Worthy Of A Repeat Name Not One We Can Be Bothered To Think Up Uniquely For Him In Our Family.

"Peter Junior might as well be Just Peter Again, or Yet Another Peter, or Peter Because He's Only Worthy Of A Repeat Name Not One We Can Be Bothered To Think Up Uniquely For Him In Our Family."

Can't wait to tell my ds......

I guess if your child is called William and it's not a family name he's a clone of the Prince then? Never heard anything so daft.

Clearly a subject which divides people.

My DH was given the same initials as previous generations so he could inherit all the monogrammed family stuff. Not sure where it's gone to as we've never benefitted from any of it

I think the point is that if you give a child the same first name and surname as their parent, it's exactly the same, unlike sharing a first name (but not surname) with others.
Obviously our sense of identity comes from much more than our names but names do play a part IMO.

Through
The monogrammed initials thing is pretty ridiculous

My brother was named after my dad...but my dad argued against it right up to the morning of the Christening! It was the last thing he wanted as he too thought it came across as conceited and my dad is so humble. Mum though couldn't think of any other boy's name that appealed.

So it isn't always arrogant on behalf of the dad.

I know! Needless to say I declined to carry on the tradition.

My ds loves the fact that he is the most recent in a long line of people with the same name going back to the 1600s. He certainly does not feel
like a clone or someone who nobody could be bothered to think of a name for!

This is a long standing tradition in many, many cultures and families and I think it's fine. I find a lot of the arguments against in this thread to be downright odd.

I wouldn't. DH has the same firs initial and middle name as his father - so for example one is Richard William Smith and the other is Robert William Smith, so both R S Smith. Father in law thinks/thought it was a terribly clever thing to do. He was also very disappointed we didn't carry on the tradition and call our first born Rupert or Rodney or something.

We have used family names for our children's middle names but their first names were not in use in the family already.

OP, I know it's different, but being "Little X" wouldn't bother me. I am "Little X" even as an adult, as I have the same name as my aunt (who I'm close to) so she's "Big X" (I think that's worse! ) and I'm "Little X"...

I do hate it when parents name their children after them though!

Irritating. Middle name yes, first name no. And as pp have said, it's such a man thing (certainly in the UK). You don't meet women who say 'I'm calling my daughter after myself' but somehow it's OK for men?

Most kids are named after their dads anyway because they take their surname