Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John jr or John the second

What’s the point? Unless the first is a significant public figure why would you name your kid after a random person?

How is your father or grandfather a random person? People love and want to honor their relatives even if they aren’t famous.

Shouldn’t the child have been named its own name?

Yes

This is rich considering there is a raging debate on another thread justifying naming your child a super popular trendy name like Sophia or Charlotte!!! Chances are your kid is always going to have someone’s name.

I don’t like it either. It’s even worse when you get down to the “third” and people call him Trip or Trey. Those names just sound silly, especially on an adult man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John jr or John the second

What’s the point? Unless the first is a significant public figure why would you name your kid after a random person?

How is your father or grandfather a random person? People love and want to honor their relatives even if they aren’t famous.

Shouldn’t the child have been named its own name?

What name does no one else have?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John jr or John the second

What’s the point? Unless the first is a significant public figure why would you name your kid after a random person?

How is your father or grandfather a random person? People love and want to honor their relatives even if they aren’t famous.

Shouldn’t the child have been named its own name?

Usually they have nicknames so they do get their own identity:

Robert
Rob
Bob
Robbie
Bobbie
Bo

Thomas
Tom
Tommy

James
Jim
Jimmy

I like it, even though I didn’t have a Junior for myself

Anonymous wrote:Naming a child after yourself has always felt so narcissistic to me. Naming it the exact same name as a relative feels like denying the child a chance to be their own person. I think middle names honoring a favorite relative or valued person are a nice compromise, but I can't imagine not giving them at least part of a name that is all their own.

That’s your perspective, but I grew up in a family where names were recycled and personally honor three female relatives with my names. I never felt like I wasn’t my own person or that I was expected to be like those women in personality or accomplishments. This has been going on in my family for generations and it’s much stranger to us to have a name not previously used by anyone else. One of my kids has a singleton name and she mentions this periodically.

Naming a child after yourself has always felt so narcissistic to me. Naming it the exact same name as a relative feels like denying the child a chance to be their own person. I think middle names honoring a favorite relative or valued person are a nice compromise, but I can't imagine not giving them at least part of a name that is all their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John jr or John the second

What’s the point? Unless the first is a significant public figure why would you name your kid after a random person?

How is your father or grandfather a random person? People love and want to honor their relatives even if they aren’t famous.

Shouldn’t the child have been named its own name?

In many cultures, it is an honor to be named for a loved one who has passed on. Judaism, for example. Also, a tradition in many AA families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John jr or John the second

What’s the point? Unless the first is a significant public figure why would you name your kid after a random person?

How is your father or grandfather a random person? People love and want to honor their relatives even if they aren’t famous.

Shouldn’t the child have been named its own name?

Yes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John jr or John the second

What’s the point? Unless the first is a significant public figure why would you name your kid after a random person?

How is your father or grandfather a random person? People love and want to honor their relatives even if they aren’t famous.

Shouldn’t the child have been named its own name?

Some people value family names. Nbd.

Anonymous wrote:John jr or John the second

What’s the point? Unless the first is a significant public figure why would you name your kid after a random person?

How is your father or grandfather a random person? People love and want to honor their relatives even if they aren’t famous.

Wait. What am I missing here?

Junior is a suffix after a full name of the father like John Thomas Smith and John Thomas Smith Junior.

The second is when you name your child after a paternal grandfather (skipping father’s generation) like John Thomas Smith II

No one adds a suffix if it’s just some random person’s name!!

Agree.

When the father is a significant public figure, it’s even worse. Frank Sinatra Jr will always be “the copy” or “the other one”. John Kennedy Jr was an exception.

This was always my feeling too

And pretty much everyone who has ever used Junior that I have talked to regretted it

John jr or John the second

What’s the point? Unless the first is a significant public figure why would you name your kid after a random person?