NationStates

I noticed a trend that was common in the 15th through 18th centuries of giving more than one of your children the same name. For example, Maria Theresa, who was Marie Antoinette's mother had sixteen children, thirteen of whom survived infancy. She had eight living daughters and every single one of them was named Maria, including Marie Antoinette whose birth name was Maria Antonia. Maria Theresa even had among her children three daughters all named Maria Carolina, but two of them died as babies. They were referred to by their middle names and nicknames, but I found it odd. Eight daughters all named Maria, isn't that confusing? Apparently this trend had made a resurgence. Like George Foreman for instance, all five of his sons are named George and they're referred to as George #1, George #2 and so on. I understand you may love a name, but come on. Names are unique identifiers so that a person can stand out and be individual. If you have five children and they're all named Chris, I'm sorry but that's not cool. That just damages a child's self esteem, they probably fell like they have no individuality because in their family they're just another Maria. I don't agree with it personally and I'd never do it but you share your opinions about parents naming multiple children the same name. Love it or hate it? What do you think about the thing?

I could care less what people name their kids.

I know a couple of identical twins with the same name, spelled the same way, but pronounced different.

This actually does bother me. Does a person not have the right to a name that's not a hastily crapped out version of their sibling's name?

The Time Alliance wrote:I could care less what people name their kids.

I suspect you mean you couldn't care less.
(Yes, I'm pedantic.)

I also know of a family who named all their sons the same first name and the middle name was what distinguished them.

The Time Alliance wrote:I could care less what people name their kids.

Okay, that's true. But to name all your children the same thing though? You can name your kids whatever you like but personally I don't agree with it. And they're are more cases of this? I'm sorry but I have to say this. God people, have some originality and respect for your children here.

Is it rare where you people live?

Blazedtown wrote:I know a couple of identical twins with the same name, spelled the same way, but pronounced different.

Now that just seems intentionally confusing.

Nuridia wrote:Okay, that's true. But to name all your children the same thing though? You can name your kids whatever you like but personally I don't agree with it. And they're are more cases of this? I'm sorry but I have to say this. God people, have some originality and respect for your children here.

I share my first name with my father and my brother, but it is so neat that it really only should work as an accessory name imho. I'm not any troubled by it, only when people refer to me using it. I correct them by voicing my middle name.

Yes, it is rare where I live. I don't personally know any siblings with the same name.

I think it's probably more common to find:

• A child has died, the next born is given the same name.
• Different siblings share the same first and middle names, just in a different order (John Paul and Paul John for instance).

Personally, I find the OP's example and the second of mine equally strange (this is despite my father and one of his brother's being an instance of the latter, and a friend of mine's got a similar thing going on with his brother as well).

Meowfoundland wrote:Now that just seems intentionally confusing.

Ideal for alibis!

Forsher wrote:[*] Different siblings share the same first and middle names, just in a different order (John Paul and Paul John for instance).[/list]

In the 4th grade there was such a boy with both my names, but in the reverse order, and he had also a seemingly opposite personality (I was extremely troublesome and vocal, he was quiet and well-behaving), a very reddish skin and light hair and eyes whilst mine are both extremely dark contrasting with a skin that was rather very white at the time (save for my mouth, that was extremely red, whilst his was actually in a not hotter tone than his face overall). People always joked that someone was an evil spirit coming from the other side of the mirror to steal the soul of the other.

Say, in this day and age, you have a favourite Uncle John who you and your spouse (Mr and Mrs Smith, for the sake of argument) are buttering up for a possible inheritence, in the future.

You might name your first son David John Smith. Uncle John will be flattered. Your next son you call Ryan John Smith. (Trust me, in this example you do.) Uncle John is flattered some more. Then along comes Stephen John Smith, Grant John Smith and (because we've been beating the odds, somewhat) maybe Rachael Joanna Smith after that. Uncle John is either increasingly flattered or has started to become creeped out by this.

However, you'd probably never call any of them "John". You'd shout at David for leaving his muddy football (either type) boots in the hallway, Ryan for having not done his homework in the morning, Stephen for having not replaced the top on the buiscuit/cookie jar, Grant for leaving his toys on the stairs and Rachael for throwing her food on th floor from her high-chair. When crayon graffiti is found on the wallpaper, you'd admonish the apparently guilty individual with their full name, to express your displeasure.

Why would something similar (only this time the distinction being the middle name, or perhaps even the person's familial pet name, in more friendly call-and-respond scenarios) not have happened in a family with names such as MA had?


And that's not including childhood mortality. It was far from uncommon (indeed, I can trace an example in my own ancestry) that should an original John Smith die, Mr and Mrs Smith may name the next (or a subsequent) child John. Whether in honour for the lost child or because "Well, 'John' and 'Smith' work well together, and it's easier than thinking up a new name", it's hard to tell, but I bet elements of both. (Or because, either for the above reasons or just as a a family tradition, they wanted a John to survive.)


And these days, sixteen children (three of whom died as babies), would be extraordinary. In the old days you would hedge your bets against infant/childhood/pre-adulthood mortality, so as to guarantee succession (also maybe someone to help look after you in old age), and with the distinctly different societal pressures (never mind the less refined or even absent opportunities for/knowledge about contraception), children were necessarily more a 'commodity' than they are (or certainly should be) these days...


So I don't know exactly why this was done, in your given case, but there's plenty of legitimate reasons to do it and any number of ways to handle any 'confusion'. Which was probably minimal.

My Ulster scot grandfather is named John William, his brothers were John Thomas and John John

I sharw my name with my father and 7 cousins (all of us named after my other grandfather)

Our self esteem is fine (mostly), children are resilient and soon learn to identify which person is being referred to

Cetacea wrote:My Ulster scot grandfather is named John William, his brothers were John Thomas and John John

I sharw my name with my father and 7 cousins (all of us named after my other grandfather)

Our self esteem is fine (mostly), children are resilient and soon learn to identify which person is being referred to

John John!?

Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro wrote:

Nuridia wrote:Okay, that's true. But to name all your children the same thing though? You can name your kids whatever you like but personally I don't agree with it. And they're are more cases of this? I'm sorry but I have to say this. God people, have some originality and respect for your children here.

I share my first name with my father and my brother, but it is so neat that it really only should work as an accessory name imho. I'm not any troubled by it, only when people refer to me using it. I correct them by voicing my middle name.

That's what makes it a stupid thing to do.

Names are outdated. We should start using binary numbers instead of names from now on. I already have, and my children, 001011001 and 1001001001 are better off for it.

Well I think everyone should have a unique, phonetically spelled, non-comedic name so if I got my way, this wouldn't be an issue.

It's not quite so bad with names that are modified or go with other names, like Billie Sue and Billie Lou. That's especially true for Mary or Maria, which is often combined with other names such as Rose or Beth/Elizabeth or Margaret.

But poor Georgetta Foreman.

Nuridia wrote:I noticed a trend that was common in the 15th through 18th centuries of giving more than one of your children the same name. For example, Maria Theresa, who was Marie Antoinette's mother had sixteen children, thirteen of whom survived infancy. She had eight living daughters and every single one of them was named Maria, including Marie Antoinette whose birth name was Maria Antonia. Maria Theresa even had among her children three daughters all named Maria Carolina, but two of them died as babies. They were referred to by their middle names and nicknames, but I found it odd. Eight daughters all named Maria, isn't that confusing? Apparently this trend had made a resurgence. Like George Foreman for instance, all five of his sons are named George and they're referred to as George #1, George #2 and so on. I understand you may love a name, but come on. Names are unique identifiers so that a person can stand out and be individual. If you have five children and they're all named Chris, I'm sorry but that's not cool. That just damages a child's self esteem, they probably fell like they have no individuality because in their family they're just another Maria. I don't agree with it personally and I'd never do it but you share your opinions about parents naming multiple children the same name. Love it or hate it? What do you think about the thing?

That's a novel way to solve a problem like Maria.

Nuridia wrote: Names are unique identifiers so that a person can stand out and be individual. If you have five children and they're all named Chris, I'm sorry but that's not cool. That just damages a child's self esteem,

I know many siblings who share first or second or third etc names among them and with their parents. And no, no self-esteem issues.

Rationallia wrote:Well I think everyone should have a unique, phonetically spelled, non-comedic name so if I got my way, this wouldn't be an issue.

Who gets Rhzktrzyyy?

Because, you know, the number of sounds in human languages is finite.

It's not too odd. My family had two great, great uncles (brothers) with the same name. Catholics. Their middle names are their godfather's names, given upon confirmation.