My hubby is a II (not a [name]Jr[/name].). He and his dad go by different forms of the same name - for example: [name]Jonathan[/name] and [name]John[/name]. What I’m wondering is, what are your opinions of naming our future son after my hubby and his dad (making him the III), but calling our son by his middle name. For example if my hubby and his dad were named [name]Jonathan[/name] [name]David[/name] [name]Maynard[/name], our son would have the same name, but we would call him [name]David[/name]. I’m not sure if my question is clear???
Any thoughts?
I would appreciate any input. THANKS!
I think it is a fine idea, if it is really important to you to carry on the “family name.” Instead of calling him by his middle name, though, you could call him [name]Tripp[/name] - a nickname for anyone who is a III. I prefer this to calling him by his middle name, personally, because I think it gives him more of a connection to his father and grandfather. Hopefully that makes sense.
I mean, to be perfectly honest, I’m not a huge fan of using II, III, etc. because I would want to be, I don’t know, more creative? I also think it can be a bit confusing if not done correctly. My grandfather and father are both named [name]James[/name], but they don’t have the same middle name - thus, my dad isn’t a [name]Junior[/name]. However, they [name]BOTH[/name] go by [name]Jim[/name], which can be very confusing when we are all together. My dad ends up being called [name]Jimmy[/name], his mom’s pet name for him, which really doesn’t suit him at all!
I think it’s a nice thing to do if you want to. It’s a matter of choice - I know my mother regretted being pressured into naming my brother as [name]Jr[/name]. after my dad, but if you like the idea, and you both agree, then it’s great. Calling him a different name around the house, like his middle name, is also a good idea. Being a 3rd, there are a few nicer nicknames than “[name]Junior[/name]” for a 2nd: [name]Trey[/name], [name]Tripp[/name]… anything so long as father and son aren’t [name]John[/name] and [name]Johnny[/name], maybe [name]Jack[/name]? Big [name]John[/name] and [name]Little[/name] [name]John[/name] is also bad - my household growing up with my brother and dad was like that. Someone calls the house, and you have to ask them if they want Big or [name]Little[/name], it’s kind of gross and my brother got big eventually, so it wasn’t suitable for the long term. If [name]John[/name] is just a stand-in name, I do think [name]John[/name] and [name]Jack[/name] are a distinctive pair of names for like-named father and son, but if it’s not the real name you’re referring to, I think this is a good reason for one to go by their middle name, while carrying through a tradition of sorts.
Your son may not want to carry it on another generation or meet someone who is agreeable to that (us ladies like the names we like sometimes, so it can be a sticking point). That’s pretty much the only thing I can think against this idea. I don’t think 2 generations is a tradition, but 3 can be sort of a hard trend to deal with, it takes on more importance the further it goes, and can be harder to put an end to it, if one wants to follow their own ideas. I’m probably not very much into [name]Jr[/name].'s, myself, but I do know someone who is a IVth, who recently had a son, and heard about this issue about naming his son - I know this person in one isolated context, I didn’t even know his wife was having a baby (barely even knew he had a wife), so if I think of it, I’ll report back on how it ended up. My friend goes by his middle name as your idea went, he’s [name]Randall[/name], well, [name]Randy[/name]. At the stage were I naming someone 5th in line (to what?), I don’t know if I could say it ends here, but if it were a case of a potential [name]Jr[/name]., I probably absolutely would. You pretty much hold the cards on whether it continues or not, being just a 3rd so far.
My husband is a III… we will not be having a IV. First of all, all three guys are called by the exact same variation of their names–so we’ve taken to identifying them by their spouse/SO : my “[name]Jack[/name]”, [name]Kathy[/name]'s “[name]Jack[/name]”, and [name]Janice[/name]'s “[name]Jack[/name]”. Secondly, though it is nice to have the family aspect of the name it generally just ends up sounding a bit pretentious by the time you are looking at a III.
Our solution (probably) is to incorporate the middle name (which I like!).
That said, if you go with a third, I like the nn [name]Trey[/name].