Continuing family name--too much?

peke1101 · September 2011

Hi all. My husband's name is Benjamin no middle name and he's the third. I love his name and also like the idea of continuing the name--I'm pretty traditional. My husband on the other hand, thinks the fourth is a bit excessive but is not entirely against the idea.

I'm opposed to giving our son a middle name because I feel that if we give him Benjamin as the first name, we should just keep the tradition. What do you all think? Is the fourth excessive?

peke1101 · September 2011

I also understand the fact that I might not even have a boy

lol....we're just brainstorming early

TripMomma · September 2011

I am not a fan at all of Jr.'s, much less a 4th. I would never want to give up my privilege of naming my child to someone else, which when you go by the whole Jr. 2nd, 3rd, 4th thing that is pretty much what you have done. Give your child his/her own name!

MaybeMore · September 2011

He's only the fourth if all other Benjamins are living.

Royal and noble titles get numbers--Edward the I, II, III, etc. Names themselves don't. For example, the king of Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor was named Charles, but he was Charles V of the HRE and Charles II of Spain. It doesn't matter whether there were 25 John Smiths in your line. If there is only one living, you're John Smith. If there are two, you're Jr. and Sr. Three, Sr., Jr., and III. Very few families would have four generations still living. (If the grandfather and grandson are living and the father is decease, it's still just Jr. and Sr.) When someone dies, your designation changes.

Additionally, the "number" is not a part of the name. If John Smith's son is named John, it's just John on the birth certificate.

At college graduations in some parts of the country, there are lots of so-and-so the fourth and even fifth being announced. The chances that someone's great-grandfather, grandfather, AND father are all alive when they reach college age is very small. It's ridiculous, pretentious, and ignorant.

kygirlie113 · September 2011

My vote goes towards giving your child his/her own name. I am not a fan of Jr's, etc. If you want to continue the tradition without naming your LO Benjamin, I would consider using Benjamin as a mn.

DawnJM25 · September 2011

I have loved the baby naming process with my DH and deciding on the perfect name for our baby. If I were you, I'd use Benjamin as a mn and give your baby his own unique fn. But, ultimately it's your decision!

hsm · September 2011

MaybeMore:

He's only the fourth if all other Benjamins are living.

Royal and noble titles get numbers--Edward the I, II, III, etc. Names themselves don't. For example, the king of Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor was named Charles, but he was Charles V of the HRE and Charles II of Spain. It doesn't matter whether there were 25 John Smiths in your line. If there is only one living, you're John Smith. If there are two, you're Jr. and Sr. Three, Sr., Jr., and III. Very few families would have four generations still living. (If the grandfather and grandson are living and the father is decease, it's still just Jr. and Sr.) When someone dies, your designation changes.

Additionally, the "number" is not a part of the name. If John Smith's son is named John, it's just John on the birth certificate.

At college graduations in some parts of the country, there are lots of so-and-so the fourth and even fifth being announced. The chances that someone's great-grandfather, grandfather, AND father are all alive when they reach college age is very small. It's ridiculous, pretentious, and ignorant.

I do not agree with you. Often times, the "practices" that are followed are cultural.

However, when a Jr has a son, the son, if named identically, is a III. If, upon the death of the original, the Jr. chooses to stop using the Jr, the III stays III. (If he didn?t, he would be confused with his father.) Furthermore, when the III dies, his son remains IV, and so on. The eldest may choose to drop the suffix, but everybody else retains their number.

Should a death occur in the middle, the same rule applies. For example, if Jr, III and IV are living and suddenly III dies, Jr remains Jr, and IV remains IV. Jr may choose to drop the suffix and even may have done so before III died, but IV is still IV. Then, as time goes by and Jr dies, IV may then, and only then, change or drop the suffix.

In other words, only the living man that is closest to the original may change or drop the suffix. Everyone else stays the same.

And the suffix, ie III, IV does show on legal documents.

niki731 · September 2011

DH and I are both not a fan of Jr's. Sorry...

cmhicklin · September 2011

I agree with pp, especially if your DH doesn't want to have a 4th, use it as a mn.

EastCoastBride · September 2011

kygirlie113:
My vote goes towards giving your child his/her own name. I am not a fan of Jr's, etc. If you want to continue the tradition without naming your LO Benjamin, I would consider using Benjamin as a mn.

I agree with this. Honestly, the thought that goes through my head when I hear of Jr's, III's, etc, I think "what was so fricking great about the first that makes them SO worthy of having numerous people named after them?"

I will say - if you KNOW the person you're naming after, I can understand it to a degree. But to give him the 4th? Did you ever know the 1st? If not, why name your child after him (because really, that's what you're doing)?

I really like the name Benjamin and it was on my short list. In your situation, I'd use it as a middle name.

Also, I feel making your child the 4th puts even MORE pressure to continue the traditions - which I also feel is unfair. When your child has his own kids (if he does!), he should have the freedom to name them whatever he wants.

MRSR08 · September 2011

I always told myself I would never name my chid after another person. Fast forward 10 years, my DH is the III and it is very important to him to name his child the IV. Its not about continuing the name for him, its about showing respect for those men that also have the same name. Now all of these men have a given name, but NONE of them have ever been called the name on their birth certificate. They all have a nickname and they all rhyme. ( I know crazy). The name is very outdated, but I told my DH we could do it as long as we use a rhyming name for the nickname.

GeneGoddess · September 2011

I actually like family names. And if you have a boy, I think that naming him Benjamin after his father is a lovely idea. But the numerical designation (3rd, 4th, etc) is not a legal part of his name, so while he may KNOW he is the 4th, no one else would unless he tells them. A friend of mine is Thomas Joseph the umpteenth (he actually isn't sure...probably the 9th or 10th). The firstborn male in his family is ALWAYS Thomas Joseph. The men tend to go by Tom or Thomas or TJ. I also know a Dudley who is, I believe, the 5th. She's also a girl. Every firstborn male was named Dudley and when her mother was pregnant for the fourth and last time (all girls), her father said, "Well, this one will be a Dudley". She loves her name and the history behind it.

sagoon · September 2011

I am not a huge fan of doing Jrs, 3rds, 4ths etc. It seems really narcissistic to me. Unless you are royalty or a Pope I see no need for a number after your name.

Daisy41459 · September 2011

My husband is a third. He really wanted DS to be a fourth, but I did not want to continue the tradition/I'm not a huge fan of DH's name. We compromised and named DS after DH's grandfather (and my father).

If this baby is a boy, his middle name will be DH's name (no idea what his first name will be).

I say if your husband is okay with ending with the tradition, do it and consider using Benjamin as a middle name.

peke1101 · September 2011

Thanks for all of your input and info! I really appreciate it..

peke1101 · September 2011

Yes, great-grandpa and grandpa Ben are still alive...Thanks for sharing your info and opinions

thethomps · September 2011

I have a friend who is a 5th and his son is a 6th. I always thought it was kind of neat, especially when they got family generational pics. But I also understand that it's not for everyone. FWIW, I really like the name Benjamin. All the Bens I have known have been great guys.

beautifulstr13 · September 2011

If your husband is against it I wouldnt do it. Maybe he didnt appreciate not having his own identity and doesnt want to do that to his son.

KBinRI · September 2011

My cousin is the fifth, but he's the second boy, which I always thought was weird. If they were so intent on carrying on the tradition, I'm surprised they didn't give it to the first one in case they didn't have another.

I also have two friends who are IIIs who broke the cycle with their boys. One didn't like his name enough to pass it to yet a fourth generation. The other one's four other kids were named from the Bible, so they went with a biblical name. I have another friend who is a III who gave his name to one of his twin boys. I wonder if the other one will feel badly that he didn't get the passed-down name or if he'll prefer it?

frasey · September 2011

If you like it, do it. In my fam, my grandpa is Ian, his oldest son is Ian Scott (goes by Scott), his oldest son is Ian, and his oldest son is Ian Garrett (goes by Garrett). I think its a super cool family tradition, and it works for them!

KINZYD · September 2011

I very much dislike Jr's, let alone the 4th. I think children should be given their own name, not the exact same name of a family member.

tawniac1010 · September 2011

My DH is Robert Joseph the III, and all the men are known as Bob. So annoying, and it's messed up my DH's credit score! We are using Robert as a middle name if it's a boy, but no 4th for us.

lilygirl · September 2011

peke1101:
Hi all. My husband's name is Benjamin no middle name and he's the third. I love his name and also like the idea of continuing the name--I'm pretty traditional. My husband on the other hand, thinks the fourth is a bit excessive but is not entirely against the idea.
I'm opposed to giving our son a middle name because I feel that if we give him Benjamin as the first name, we should just keep the tradition. What do you all think? Is the fourth excessive?

just another perspective here-- my husband is the fourth and we feel the pressure to continue the name. I mean, when does it stop? His dad will be hurt and disappointed but DH already feels burdened to carry on the name and I don't want to pass that on to another generation. IF we have a boy, we will likely name him something else altogether. That said, I would use Benjamin as a MN and go from there.

MaybeMore · September 2011

hsm:
MaybeMore:

He's only the fourth if all other Benjamins are living.

Royal and noble titles get numbers--Edward the I, II, III, etc. Names themselves don't. For example, the king of Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor was named Charles, but he was Charles V of the HRE and Charles II of Spain. It doesn't matter whether there were 25 John Smiths in your line. If there is only one living, you're John Smith. If there are two, you're Jr. and Sr. Three, Sr., Jr., and III. Very few families would have four generations still living. (If the grandfather and grandson are living and the father is decease, it's still just Jr. and Sr.) When someone dies, your designation changes.

Additionally, the "number" is not a part of the name. If John Smith's son is named John, it's just John on the birth certificate.

At college graduations in some parts of the country, there are lots of so-and-so the fourth and even fifth being announced. The chances that someone's great-grandfather, grandfather, AND father are all alive when they reach college age is very small. It's ridiculous, pretentious, and ignorant.

I do not agree with you. Often times, the "practices" that are followed are cultural.

However, when a Jr has a son, the son, if named identically, is a III. If, upon the death of the original, the Jr. chooses to stop using the Jr, the III stays III. (If he didn?t, he would be confused with his father.) Furthermore, when the III dies, his son remains IV, and so on. The eldest may choose to drop the suffix, but everybody else retains their number.

Should a death occur in the middle, the same rule applies. For example, if Jr, III and IV are living and suddenly III dies, Jr remains Jr, and IV remains IV. Jr may choose to drop the suffix and even may have done so before III died, but IV is still IV. Then, as time goes by and Jr dies, IV may then, and only then, change or drop the suffix.

In other words, only the living man that is closest to the original may change or drop the suffix. Everyone else stays the same.

And the suffix, ie III, IV does show on legal documents.

Check out any American usage book that covers this.

MaybeMore · September 2011

peke1101:
Yes, great-grandpa and grandpa Ben are still alive...Thanks for sharing your info and opinions

Then he'll be the IV--but NOT on his birth certificate--until one of them passes. I wouldn't worry about IV being something hard for him to carry around because it isn't part of his legal name.

Honestly, I like the name Benjamin, and if he could use a NN that is nice, I'd do it.

jk101510 · September 2011

My husband is a III and his birth certificate shows him as a III as does all his legal documents. I always said I wouldn't want a Jr, III, IV etc... but after hearing how important to my husband and his family it is to continue the family tradition I'm ok with it. I don't think a IV is excessive b/c although it is attached to all their legal documents he doesn't have to walk around saying "I'm xyz the IV" constantly. The only time my husband mentions it is when someone asks. He has to sign the III on legal documents (i.e. mortgage, marriage certificate etc...) but other then that it's really never brought up so I don't think it's a big deal, especially if you like the name you're passing along.

@MaybeMore I think it's offensive for you to call people "ridiculous, pretentious and ignorant" for wanting to keep their family name going. I do not necessarily "like" the idea but to my husband and his family it is very important and a family tradition so that is something I need to think about before shutting it down all together. I don't feel he is "ridiculous, pretentious and ignorant" for wanting to keep a family tradition alive. You're allowed to have your opinion on passing the family name down but there's no need to name call or judge people that choose to do so.

Want a personalized experience?

Continuing family name--too much?

Re: Continuing family name--too much?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards