DS having same name as his Daddy?

[babynumber2onboard]

We haven't found out what we are having yet, but if we are having a boy, I'd love him to have the same name as his Daddy!

What are people's experiences of the logistics of having father and son with the same name?

DPs name can't be shortened as it only has one syllable, so just wondering how the two could be distinguished if I were telling a story about them etc.

Thanks!

It's traditional in many places isn't it, my Irish colleague was telling me when she grew up all the boys were called after their fathers and all the girls were called Mary. Logistically awkward, I would have thought. If you do use it you're bound to end up calling him something else, Little X, it Junior, or something, just to distinguish them.

@saraclara It's not traditional, or cultural for us.

My husband's middle name is his mother's maiden name so we wanted to use that anyway.

DSs short name is a name we really liked and wanted to use. We've got other children with longer names that are shortened on a daily basis so we are open to the idea of a "formal" name for documentation and a "day to day" name.

Unfortunately the traditional longer name of DSs short name is a name we couldn't use (for family reasons) but DHs name can easily be shortened to DSs name too. So we went with the whole name.

In my family, my brother, uncle and grandfather all had the same name so it's not unusual in our circle (although there was never any confusion there as they all lived on different continents!).

Hope that helps.

Thanks @Spaghettio It's kind of you to humour me! I try to be open minded and learn from other people's experiences, but I know that asking these questions can be high risk! Your explanation makes total sense.

@saraclara I'm happy to help - it wasn't a conscious decision for us "we must name him after his father"!

It was more that it kind fell that way and I quite like the idea of the name carrying on through generations. My DH did have to be convinced though. I think he thought it would seem a bit boastful?

That being said, I don't expect the tradition to carry on to the next generation, unless our DC want to do it.

Its awful. Please don't.

I was 'Little Sisyphus' for a long time. I did not like it, and even less with hindsight.

Naff/old fashioned. Middle name yes, first name no.

any post with our name on it, she would open. So nothing was private. She'd read all my bank statements, even post which was obviously not hers. I was president of a society and she would open that post and read it. Everything. Always said it's because she needed to be sure it wasn't for her.

How annoying!

My dad had the same first name as hus father, but has always, from when he was tiny, been called by his middle name. As he has said many a time, "Why the fuck didn't they have the sense to put the names the other way around?" He hates it. He has been known to miss appointments at the GP before because they've used his "proper" name to call him in the waiting room, and he's more or less forgotten that that's what he's officially called.

I agree with other pp - you almost never hear of women insisting that their daughters carry on their name (just the Gilmore Girls!), so why is it a thing for men?

I don't like it, children deserve their own name and identify. If you like it so much use it as a middle name but let them be their own person

It is very egotistical & makes a family look very unequal - to me it implies a weird sort of ‘man of house’ followed by ‘first born male’ of the house etc. I can’t explain why I feel that way but when someone commented Trump did this - I think that just reaffirmed my view

It is very egotistical & makes a family look very unequal - to me it implies a weird sort of ‘man of house’ followed by ‘first born male’ of the house etc. I can’t explain why I feel that way but when someone commented Trump did this - I think that just reaffirmed my view

It's not confusing at all.

It is, on the contrary, unambiguously egotistical and silly.

Unless your husband is an 18th century aristocrat or something.

Benefits: None that I can think of,
Disadvantages: everything already listed.

Poor child.

Someone asked my husband this when I was pregnant and he was vehemently opposed to child having his name, aside from practicalities, he thought it was strange, egotistical and not nice for the child to feel like a trophy or to not have have their own full identity in a sense. It makes sense though I mean would you name your daughter the same as you?!

You could always use the more modern '2.0'

Does the son also have his daddy's surname? If yes: this seems imo very excessive. Not due risk of confusion but because a name is a part of a person's identity (and your son obviously will not have the same identity as his father).

That's however simply my personal opinion. I understand that this is a personal preference and that are cultural differences etc.

Using the name as a middle name is however nice.

It makes sense though I mean would you name your daughter the same as you?!

I probably would. I love my name. It's a family name, means something nice and also has some rather great and Versatile nickname opportunities. And it's also genuinely rare without being weird (there's a saint, some mentions in classic literature etc)...

I don't think we will actually use it but I absolutely would. Or at least a version of the name.
Using it as a middle name is however sort of non-negotiable.

I'm also in favour of using the male version of my name (as a first name. if the LO is indeed male.)

However: the child won't have my surname. So it's not like we'd have exactly identical names (which is too much imo).

We only have the same initial and surname and the post is a pain
Letters come fior Mr J Crowther.
We don't know if it is for John , Jordon or Jonathan!

Unless there is an identifying mark on the envelope it's a case of first home opens it!!

It's pretty lazy, isn't it?

Like you simply CBA to look round for an individual name for that individual little person, so just went with the first thing you saw?

Hi maima that’s my comment in bold, we knew we were having a girl and it was the female form of my husband’s name that someone suggested so his aversion applies despite not exact name (and she has my second name, I didn’t change mine on marriage so we opted for mine for her so it would still not be the exact same name even if a boy). it would still recognisably be female form of his name and people would obviously have picked up on that and it was just the idea of naming after yourself that felt odd and egotistical (to him). I asked the OP about naming a female child after herself as she mentioned she wanted to name her son after her husband and not whether he actually did so I wondered whether she would like it in her shoes.

Incidentally I really like my name too but wouldn’t (didn’t!) use it for my daughter as didn’t feel right to me for a number of reasons including my husband’s own reasoning.

Use his dads name as a middle name instead

For me it would not be a good idea.

It may be a long way ahead, but I have seen it cause conflict with items of mail being delivered and opened by the older person, and the younger getting quite annoyed.

I suppose it might be handy for a nosy Mum....

A friend of mine is the 7th. His dad is called "Bill" (name changed), and my friend was always "Billie" until he was about 25 and started going by "Bill" as well. It's not confusing when used in context, for the most part.

One of my uncles had the same first name as his father (my grandfather). What was odd about it was that he was the third son, not the eldest.