The purpose of naming sons after their fathers is to carry on the family name since in traditional society, the male's last name survives marriage and the female adopts his last name. As sexist as this may sound by today's terms, this is just historically how it has been and has a rational foundation in trying to keep down the number of last names or hyphenated last names added to offspring.
Note that in some cultures, however, the mother's last name is included (you've heard perhaps Mexican last names where the word "de" was added, like Juan Escobar Gonzalez de Hernandez, which is a way of crediting both families to the parenting of the child.
The word "Junior" or "Jr." is typically not added unless the son is named the exact same thing as the father, including the middle name, etc. I've not heard of an instance where the daughter was given more than the first OR the middle name of the mother -- but not both -- but people do all kinds of things with names, so I'm sure it happens. It is a set-up for confusion though with two people in the same house with the exact same name.
As a "Jr." myself, I will tell you that I really didn't like it because some kids teased me (as so many cruel kids love to do) like I was a Pip-Squeak..."Hey JUNIOR! Want your BOTTLE?", as if you weren't capable of ever growing up and would always be baby or something..
As an adult, it created confusion in signing documents by always having to attach Jr. to the end of my name so as to not be confused with my father. After becoming an adult, it also just sounded a little juvenile being called "Junior" and always begged the question, "So where is Senior?"
After my father passed away, I learned that technically and from an etiquette perspective, one does not have to continue using the Jr. designation in their legal name since Sr. is no longer here. So I dropped the Jr. in my name and now get bothered when others handling my paperwork don't know this rule of dropping the Jr. after Sr. dies, and insist I sign my name with Jr. attached. It's an added pain that is just unnecessary.
I also have a son of my own and the option was for me to give him my name too in which case he would have been [name] III, or knicknamed, "Tre" (for the number three). But because I had lived that minor confusion of having the same name as my father my whole life, I didn't want to perpetuate MORE confusion, so we gave my son an entirely different first and middle name so he could feel unique and not always "in his father's shadow", in a manner of speaking.
Which is all a long winded way of pointing out..."Would you really WANT an additional name attached to the end of yours that would constantly remind others there is a more mature person somewhere and you are subordinate to them in terms of age or perceived experience?"
2007-11-30 05:41:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by John S. 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
By her name.
2007-11-30 05:20:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by MrRight 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Her name.
2007-11-30 05:33:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by chris_at_lucas 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The same thing or by her middle name.
Traditionally women take the name of their husband when they get married, so the "junior" and first second third confusion ends. Boys keep their names their whole life, so therein lies the problem. With boys taking their wive's names and women not taking their husband's name, someone might come up with something. Why don't you? You could start a whole new trend.
2007-11-30 05:24:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Since, until the most recent generation, girls were expected to marry and change their name, there is no junior designation. The mother has, in fact, changed her own name when she got married.
As times change, I believe we will see fewer women changing their legal name although socially they might still choose to be introduced by their hubby's name. However, a junior designation still won't work for a daughter if she bears her father's last name.
2007-11-30 05:22:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by loryntoo 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Whoops!
Since land generally passed to the first born male, the practice of naming one's legitimate male offspring after the paterfamilias grew with legal stature (Jr., II, III, etc.). Since the female offspring did not generally inherit estates (the next nearest male relative receiving the bequest), there was never a need to refer to them as anything other than "little miss X".
Nowadays, little Sarah Michelle, Jennifer, or Moonflower could be a junior, if Mom wishes to saddle her with such a sobriquet.
2007-11-30 05:25:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Goethe's Ghostwriter 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Most women don't do that. But they don't get called Junior, it's just the girls name. I knew 3 generations of Ednas. They didn't have any suffix.
2007-11-30 05:21:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by Laughing all the way 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Junior.
2007-11-30 05:20:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by TweetyBird 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
there is no formal way to do this but one common way is
Mother : Anne
Child: Little Anne
Child: (or something cute like...) Annie
Mother: Alexandra
Child: Alex Ally Ali Lex Lexie Xandra Sandra Alexis
2007-11-30 05:22:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Second
I was just thinking like Queen Elizabeth II
2007-11-30 05:37:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by NMcwgrl 3
·
1⤊
0⤋