You must log in or register to comment.

earnest_dad t1_ivzub2g wrote

This is the cleanest regression discontinuity I've seen in my entire life.


Ejm819 t1_iw0fza4 wrote

I was about to comment "this is a text book RDD"


paul_f t1_iw13seg wrote

it's really an astonishing finding


_Batnaan_ t1_ivzuwkd wrote

It's probably due to some kind of administration process change either in the naming process or the counting.


Southernbelle5959 t1_iw0nnf1 wrote

It's probably because families realized the mortality of the father and wanted to keep the family name going.


Content_Flamingo_583 t1_iw19g7k wrote

I’d be curious if they were that worried about mortality literally the day the war started, which is what this data reflects.

From what I understand, many people vastly underestimated how long and deadly the war was going to be. Many thought it would be a quick, even exciting affair.

It would take weeks and months for the casualties to start piling up and for people to start realizing just how deadly the war was.

But I don’t know, I guess I don’t have a better explanation. I don’t know why you’d only be concerned about keeping your name going (which typically only applies to the first born) if you’re going to die during the war (vs. dying of natural causes years later?)


oioioifuckingoi t1_iw1e27g wrote

The war started on June 28. This data starts in August/September. In less than a month, in the beginning of August to the beginning of September, France suffered over 300,000 casualties in the Battle of the Frontiers. It is commonly misunderstood that people thought this was going to be a quick and bloodless affair, especially for the French. It lasted less than a month.


platitood t1_iw1ej70 wrote

Where “it” was the misconception. Not the war. :)


lenzflare t1_iw1t4fz wrote

"And all the warring countries lived happily ever after...."


RedditSuggestion1234 t1_iw21rsm wrote

>The war started on June 28

That's the day Gavrilo Princip killed prince Ferdinand, the war started in August


WaerI t1_iw1wph4 wrote

While its not surprising to see an immediate increase, it is strange that it would increase so sharply and then stop. As you say over the few months after the war began the casualties increased significantly so you would expect the rise here to increase constantly over those months to some degree. There was certainly space for it to do so as the percentage never really maxes out (I would say the max is below 100% given many family's will already have sons named after the father but still). There could have been some national push towards naming children for there fathers over one specific week but I think its more likely that there is some irregularity in how the data was collected which seems likely in war time.


fail-deadly- t1_iw2b31m wrote

France had a single 24 hour period in August 1914 where it had more than 25,000 troops killed, and it only had a population of 41 million.

I mean Russia seems to be absolutely pissing away Soldiers lives in its current war, but there doesn’t seem to be anything close to that day’s losses, and Russia has a population of more than 140 million people.


Sooperfreak t1_iw1t0vj wrote

The only other difference I can think of is that once the men left for war there was an almost instant change to mothers being solely responsible for naming their children.

Maybe it’s simply that a mother is more likely to name a child after her husband than a fathers is to name a child after himself.


Viend t1_iw1xv7f wrote

>Maybe it’s simply that a mother is more likely to name a child after her husband than a fathers is to name a child after himself.

I highly doubt this, but the fact that there is a good chance daddy's dead makes it much more plausible.


abandoningeden t1_iw2aklz wrote

Maybe a bunch of soon to be dads died and they got named after them


Thumperfootbig t1_iw1c11c wrote

You don’t think that enlisting in the army to go off to fight and die causes the soldier and his wife to think about mortality?


TNSepta t1_iw1e01v wrote

It's not about the concern, it is more about how abrupt the change is. It feels extremely unlikely for the entire nation to switch from being unconcerned to fully concerned over the timespan of a week.


1945BestYear t1_iw1vvjl wrote

That was quite literally what happened, across most of Europe. Franz Ferdinand is shot on the 28th of June, and it's front-page news in Western Europe for maybe a day. Nobody seriously thinks that this could start a continent-wide war. For about four weeks, while a perfect storm of wrong assumptions and misunderstandings between diplomats and ministers gradually builds up to Russia's call for mobilisation on the 31st of July, France is busy talking about a completely different assassination, that of the newspaper editor Gaston Calmette by Henriette Caillaux, a socialite and wife of a former prime minister, who thought Calmette was going to publish intimate letters of theirs that were written while they were both married to other people.

France going from talking about that to hearing declarations of war and mobilising to meet the invading Germans happens in days, its complete whiplash for everyone in France. Imagine if in 1995 the US just abruptly went to war with Russia or something while in the middle of the OJ Simpson trial. Or put this another way; not many people in America were worrying about terrorist attacks or Islamic fundamentalism on the 10th of September of 2001.


nagumi t1_iw3lei9 wrote

This was very well written. Thank you.


Condawg t1_iw1g815 wrote

There wasn't a war going, and then there was. Why is it hard to believe that would cause some national concern?


j_cruise t1_iw1ixku wrote

I think it's hard for people to imagine when they've never experienced a war take place within their country, or somewhere very near to their country.


Condawg t1_iw1nej4 wrote

I live in America, all of our recent wars have been fought elsewhere. It just seems like common sense.


sabot00 t1_iw2424y wrote

What do you think the atmosphere in Kyiv was on Feb 27?


creamyjoshy t1_iw1z7kj wrote

It wasn't 100% of the nation. The jump was only 5%


MaxTHC t1_iw1ltth wrote

It's only a 5% jump. Quite possible that this jump was due to war breaking out, and that the number kept climbing as casualties started mounting


WaerI t1_iw1vvn6 wrote

But the confusing thing is the jump stayed at 5%. I can see there being an immediate uptick but I'd expect that rise to continue for a while before leveling.


MaxTHC t1_iw462j9 wrote

You know what, my brain interpreted the ticks on the plot as month-long intervals. So I thought it was a much shorter time scale than it actually is.


WaerI t1_iw1w29g wrote

Even if there was an immediate increase, I can't see why that increase wouldn't continue as the war got worse throughout the year.


1945BestYear t1_iw1x60r wrote

People before the war did actually expect that a war between great powers would be immensely bloody, which is part of why the majority of people wanted to avoid war if at all possible. They just assumed that it would also be short, a matter of a few months.The bloodbaths of August and September were basically what people were imagining would happen.


WaerI t1_iw45vu6 wrote

I understand that, its just odd to me that everyone went to max concern in just one week. I would have thought as the war went on and more soldiers died the rate of naming would increase. Especially considering it only rises roughly 5 percent. Remember in that first data point is late July to early August which actually means that the bloodbaths of August and September had little effect


LifeOnNightmareMode t1_iw28soq wrote

Because casualtity rates were at more less constant level throughout those month. So if we assume that only those where the father was killed would be name after them then the rate of naming could stay somewhat constant too.


WaerI t1_iw44quk wrote

I would disagree since there are two things that need to happen based on that assumption. The father has to die, and then the baby must be born. If the fathers deaths follow a perfect step function (i.e they are constant once war is declared) the rate of naming will increase as the proportion of dead fathers increases. Based on that assumption what this data implies is almost all of the fathers died simultaneously. Basically the rate of naming is the integral of the rate of deaths


LifeOnNightmareMode t1_iwhuplj wrote

I don’t think so as each dot is the rate at that day.


WaerI t1_iwigk0s wrote

I'm not sure what you mean I understand that each dot is the rate at that day. My point is that if all the fathers died at once we would expect the naming chang to instantly rise and stay high as it is here for roughly 9 months. This is because the child isn't named when the father dies they are named when they are born some time in the next 9 months.


LifeOnNightmareMode t1_iwilt4a wrote

I was thinking along the lines that if the number of future fathers dying remains constant than the naming should remain constant too. Only if the number of death per day increases then the naming would increase too. But it’s just speculating as I don’t know what really happened :)


WaerI t1_iwirjzq wrote

I understand that, but what I'm saying is that if the number of fathers dying remains constant than the naming will gradually increase for 9 months at which point it will remain constant. If there's 100000 fathers and 1000 died a week and there is also 1000 births we would only expect 1% or 10 of those babies to have dead fathers. This means that the number of babies with dead fathers is proportional to the proportion of fathers who are dead. The next week if both numbers remained constant we would expect the number to be 2% and so on. Conversely even if fathers stopped dying there would still be a large number of births with dead fathers for several months.


polytique t1_iw0sxc2 wrote

It's the start of the First Wold War. The effect is only for fathers under 35 years old.


thejdobs t1_iw0rl9p wrote

World War I started so lots of new borns were named in their father’s memory


Content_Flamingo_583 t1_iw1akzr wrote

But the first big deadly battle for France wasn’t until September (First Battle of the Marne). And this tend seems to start right at the outbreak of the war in July (as soon as the war was declared). So I don’t think this can be viewed as a response to casualties inflicted.


Thumperfootbig t1_iw1ca33 wrote

When men go to war they know the risks. Why are you even objecting to the idea of this being absolutely driven by people suddenly being faced with their mortality, and then changing their priorities and decisions accordingly?


fail_whale_fan_mail t1_iw1eot0 wrote

Damn, dude. Because it's a super clean shift and data is rarely that clean. It's possible it's related to the war, but it's very fair to question.

Also it looks like it's followed by only a very slight trend upward in subsequent months which is kind of weird. As casualties increase, and there's more passed family members to honor, why doesn't it continue increasing at a steeper slope?


fearatomato t1_iw1pg3x wrote

lol reddet "objecting to the idea" as if it makes you an enemy or something


riotousgrowlz t1_iw2my5e wrote

To your second point, there’s a limit to how many boys born in this period can be named after their fathers since many sons already have older brother named after their father.


Thumperfootbig t1_iw1fe7p wrote

It’s not casualties, it’s the fact that war is declared.


fail_whale_fan_mail t1_iw1gm4h wrote

If the underlying driver is thinking about mortality, it seems both the declaration of war and the death of loved ones would drive up the rate.

It's possible the declaration of war had this effect, but the pattern of the dots raise some red flags, which I would want to investigate further before supporting any interpretation.


PioneerSpecies t1_iw1ig8p wrote

“Are you female” lol what are you implying, that women can’t understand what an impending war would feel like?


morconheiro t1_iw1t7em wrote

Agreed, otherwise you'd think it would still gradually increase more and more as the war dragged on.


NarcissusLovesEcho t1_iw1bvx0 wrote

I'm such a stats geek that I'm actually getting a little emotional looking at it (the topic is probably also playing a role).


Willingo t1_iw1feyg wrote

Since the data dimensionality is so low, could you explain the math to do this then?


Jayrem52 t1_iw22t69 wrote

I’m so broken I’m trying to figure out how this is wrong. It’s just… beautiful…


andreasbeer1981 t1_iw21afs wrote

Makes me wonder why Germans preferred to kill those French that didn't intend to name their first son after themselves.


exradical t1_iw2qn8l wrote

Probably also a lot of mothers that were naming their sons after dead fathers


puneralissimo t1_ivyum42 wrote

You'll be named after your father about 10-15% of the time, with no increase in prevalence.

Unless, of course, war were declared.


mehnimalism t1_ivz023m wrote

I have a sneaking suspicion this was in memory of fathers who were killed.


Doortofreeside t1_ivzeeuo wrote

The immediate jump after the declaration of war makes me think it's also that fathers were away from home at that time.


mehnimalism t1_ivzem2s wrote

Ah, you know what, you’re right. I’d say memorializing is the small trend after and absence is closer to 80% of cause.


poupadis t1_ivzmeim wrote

for sure.

similarly, people about to leave for war might want to leave a reminder for their child in case they died


Pretlik t1_iw22hqw wrote

I never thought about it that way. My grandfather was born after his father was send off to fight in WW2, so he never met his dad. But he does share a name with him. My great grandfather died fighting in the war and his son got to live on with the same name.


grundhog t1_iw14vyu wrote

Name the kids after the dead father to better secure support from late father's family. Classic survival move


sleeknub t1_iw1anax wrote

Or were at high risk of being killed in the near future.


I_likeIceSheets t1_ivzq05a wrote

*alarm goes off*

"What's that?"

"War were declared"


UndendingGloom t1_iw0m9dz wrote

Some of you may die, but it's a risk I'm willing to take


ChrissyKin_93 t1_iw0vn5d wrote

"What happened?!"

"War were declared."


potatan t1_iw1ug2k wrote

"When using be in an if clause for an unreal conditional sentence, always conjugate it as were, no matter what the subject is. Even if the subject is first-person singular (I) or third-person singular (he, she, or it), still use were with an if clause in unreal conditional sentences. "


bjco OP t1_ivykbju wrote

This graph was done with R / ggplot, and is based on Geneanet data (first names of the father, first names of his children).

More here : and here (in French)


BRUISE_WILLIS t1_iw0h0m7 wrote

Pardon ignorance: forename = first name?


polytique t1_iw0sktc wrote

Yes, translation of "premier prénom" in French: so cases where the father's first name becomes the son's first name.


v4nguardian t1_iw1owys wrote

“Premier prénom” is redundant as “prénom” itself is “first name”, “nom” or “nom de famille” being the last name


GFL07 t1_iw1q2uq wrote

"premier prénom" is not redundant as you can have multiple "prénoms". Your second name is your "deuxième prénom" and your third name is your "troisième prénom" etc. With your last name usually being one or two family names.


Tokipudi t1_iw1z2um wrote

Yes, but not a single french person will ask you your "Premier prénom".

When asking for someone's first name you simply ask what is the person's "prénom", and if you want to ask about if they have a second or third name then you simply ask about what their "second name" is or if they have other "prénoms".

But this is not asked often at all, as 2nd and 3rd names are only ever used in an administrative kind of way and never used to actually talk to someone.


GFL07 t1_iw23klb wrote

Yes but here the precision is important because the data is specifically on the "premier prénom".


Tokipudi t1_iw27o8g wrote

And my point is that, unless stated otherwise, "Prénom" means "Premier prénom".


Evepaul t1_iw2c6sw wrote

To quote OP, the author of the paper, in French:

"Entre 1905 et le 1er août 1914, mois après mois, semaine après semaine, 12% des garçons environ reçoivent en premier prénom le premier prénom de leur père. [...] Mais dès la semaine du 3 août 1914, après la déclaration de guerre et la mobilisation générale du 1er août 1914, le taux de transmission passe à 17 ou 18%."

The same thing said with "prénom" instead of "premier prénom" could just as well mean that boys would have their father's first name as a second name. Both are prénoms. Or even their father's second name as a second name. Or any combination of prénoms (I have my father's second name "Marie" as my third).


Tokipudi t1_iw3f5f7 wrote


The same thing said with "Prénom" would be interpreted as "Premier prénom" by default.

As I said, "Prénom" always means "Premier prénom" unless stated otherwise.


GFL07 t1_iw4mxlo wrote

No, your "prénom" is your "prénom usuel" witch can be chosen between any of your "prénoms". It's the "prénom" you use in everyday life et nothing force it to be your "premier prénom ". It usually is the "premier prénom" but a lot of people uses one of their other "prénom".


Tokipudi t1_iw4q8pd wrote

Technically right, but completely wrong when it comes to actual real life use.

I have never encountered a single French person who uses anything but their first name as their "Prénom usuel".

Once again, these terms are only use in an administrative way and are (almost) never used in any other context.


GFL07 t1_iw4ssth wrote

> I have never encountered a single French person who uses anything but their first name as their "Prénom usuel".

Most people who chooses to not use their first name as their "prénom usuel" wouldn't disclose to people their aren't close with that they don't use their first name.

You wouldn't know unless they told you their full name. Witch, let's be honest, rarely happens outside of administrative work.

It's totally possible that you encountered multiple peoples using a "prénom usuel" witch is not their first name without knowing it wasn't their first name.


mcSibiss t1_iw361pk wrote

People in France have multiple first names?

My first language is French but I’m not French. We don’t usually have multiple first names, although we have three first names on our baptismal certificate, Joseph, our Godfather’s name and our own.

I have never heard anyone say premier prénom nor seen it written.


GFL07 t1_iw37gyf wrote

Not everyone but a lot of people have multiple "firstnames". It depends on family traditions etc. I personally have 3 names before my family name. My sister have 4.

Our parents gave us our names to honor people from the family. My second name is the firstname of my great grandfather and my third name is the firstname of one of my great uncles who died shortly before my birth.


monedula t1_iw1q2rv wrote

You can have more than one forename.


gogetenks123 t1_iw1pcji wrote

French is extremely fun because of this. I absolutely enjoy filling forms that start with “Nom” (name) with my first or even my full name only for the next form item to be “Prénom” (first name).

Totally doesn’t happen every single time no sir.


Stahlios t1_iw1xwzh wrote

Me, a French that has lived in France his whole life, messing up everytime too


[deleted] t1_iw28tso wrote



Stahlios t1_iw29591 wrote

Yeah because sometimes you just have one "Nom" and you're expected to write both name / first name, sometimes you have "Nom" first then "Prénom", sometimes "Prénom" first then "Nom".


BeerMeAlready t1_iw1z7yx wrote

Same in germany. I hate this. I also sometimes just fill in the last name, just to realize it's just one "Name" field and I was supposed to put the full name (first and last)


eklatea t1_iw2s6b5 wrote

it's not like we have a word that makes it clear that it's the last name. That'd be ridiculous


wittyscreenname t1_iw0mumq wrote

Now, I'm curious how it looks further into the war or beyond.


rebelshibe t1_iw1c9ot wrote

Yeah, I was curious if this dips down again into the 20s/30s and back up in the 40s?


Retrospectrenet t1_iw1ep9c wrote

It dips back down to baseline 9 months after August 1 1914 for fathers but stays elevated even past the end of the war for uncles.


fearatomato t1_iw1pzfw wrote

i suppose it drops after 9 months because the fathers would have to be the ones not immediately sent away, whereas uncles persists longer because the father could still be home


SurroundingAMeadow t1_iw2ao4r wrote

At first I read your comment as a dark joke about unfaithful wives having kids with their deployed husband's brother, but then I realized that it makes more sense that the men who weren't deployed were naming their sons after their brothers who were deployed or killed.

Reddit has jaded me into assuming the worst in commentators.


Primedirector3 t1_iw0etuk wrote

If you haven’t seen the remake of All Quiet on the Western Front on Netflix, go watch it.

Unbelievably brutal but moving


greem t1_iw0jx9l wrote

Is it that good?

I read the book in high school, but the WW1 movies never hit it for me like the WW1 books and the WW2 movies (well, WW2 any media)


Zoravor t1_iw0l14d wrote

It’s a brutally honest war movie. Some of the characters from the book are in the movie, but for the most part the movie deviates from the book. Instead it uses its setting to show you things about the war soldiers had to deal with like creeping artillery barrages, gas attacks, and even the first time a tank was used. The opening 5 mins is a great portrait of the war machine back home and the ending shows the pride and just how comically out of touch the men conducting the war were.


Primedirector3 t1_iw0khel wrote

English dubbed, but done well.

Really highlights the pointless brutality of the whole conflict


guaranic t1_iw1kp0k wrote

They have the original German dub on there as well, but the English dub was one of the best English live action dubs I've seen.


SheinhardtWigCompany t1_iw0rk7f wrote

It's ok. If you like war movies I'd say give it a go. Really shows the brutality of war, especially the first world war but I wouldn't say it comes anywhere near the level of the book or really good war movies.


aranderson43 t1_iw1c3c8 wrote

Its a good war movie in a shallow pool of WW1 war movies. I dont think it was as well done as some of the top-tier WW2 movies, but it was still enjoyable and different in it's atmosphere than many others. Some of the shots were overly artistic and I felt like the camera focused on the gore-porn too much.


ClassifiedName t1_iw22kfw wrote

Imo it's good if you aren't familiar with the book or have a lot of WWI knowledge. The reasons being there are quite a few plot changes and historical errors. Still pretty enjoyable if you aren't expecting to be amazed though!


SyriseUnseen t1_iw4nrr7 wrote

It's certainly significantly worse than the book. The ending especially. I dont get why they changed it.

Overall alright to watch, though.


asarious t1_ivztu9v wrote

It’s not obvious to me what the dots here represent. Is it just a particular sample of newborn boys that was examined on a particular week?

I feel like a legend or some additional explanation text would help a little.


shumpitostick t1_iw0h59u wrote

It says it at the top. Weekly Parental Forename Transmission Rate. It's not a sample, it's just the percentage of children that were born each week who got named after their dad.


Fox-Slayer-Marx t1_iw0d8y8 wrote

I think each dot represents some period of time?


Kkachko t1_iw145in wrote

Each dot represents one week.


mathtech t1_iw2hqlj wrote

I think a line graph would've worked better here since it's a time series


Qastodon t1_iw0punl wrote

Why did people get named after their fathers more?


mbelf t1_iw0urld wrote

People want to remember dead fathers.


definitely_not_cylon t1_iw1ao8l wrote

That was my first guess but the effect seems a little too fast-- the uptick occurs immediately after the declaration of war. My guess is that mothers starting the name after men who were at this point just deployed or soon to be deployed. Many of whom would end up dead later, of course.


mbelf t1_iw1ayuj wrote

Oh yeah, they were definitely hedging their bets.


kanakopi t1_iw276b1 wrote

Unlike to WWII, important battles started about a week after after the declaration of war.

The first months of war were notably the bloodiest ones. The death rate was an order of magnitude above the average of the rest of the war. Trench warfare made the people forget this fact a little.


kingliljanky t1_iw196f3 wrote

Name me. Name me like one of your French boys


Wugliwu t1_ivzupyf wrote

Uff... Just a few points but so touching. Good work.


_CaptainCooter_ t1_iw0wi09 wrote

All right boys the challenge is to bring this up in a casual conversation


Trollw00t t1_iw6c64p wrote

"So... hi Jeff. Haha, litte awkward for me, as I haven't dated much since corona... Jeff is a nice name by the way!"

"Mhm, did you know that since the declaration of the First World War, more and more boys have been named after their fathers?"


Retrospectrenet t1_iw1dfze wrote

You have an even more interesting graph where it shows the rate of transmission falling back to base levels after May 1915 and for the rest of the war. That's about 9 months after deployment. Also interesting that fathers who were at a greater risk of dying were more likely to have their name passed down. Uncle name transmission lasted at elevated levels into the 1920s. Also interesting that daughters were also named after their fathers.

Edit: realized it was OC and reworded.


Ajatolah_ t1_iw1y05f wrote

It's interesting to see that in their culture 10% of the boys shared their first name with their father to begin with. It's almost unheard of in my country and would probably be considered a bit egoistical to name your kid to honor yourself.

But it's quite common for kids to be named after the deceased, example if one of the parent has a dead parent or a sibling they name the kid after them.


Worth-Passenger9613 t1_iw0x60j wrote

wow. it would be interesting to see something like this broken down by top N names. perhaps unavailable but things like location deployed to, role, rank, lag between deployment and birth, socioeconomic status too. probably a more nuanced task but would also be interesting to observe effects on daughter names.


Worth-Passenger9613 t1_iw1ygu6 wrote

Thank you, this is super interesting. “avuncular transmission rate” is a new and memorable phrase for me. Age is an interesting discriminant I see. thanks again!


Tmaster95 t1_iw2gsnc wrote

This is so damn clean! I love how you could do a beautiful regression without regrets here


weareartickl t1_iw2hd08 wrote

Such an interesting real world example of regression discontinuuity


deligonca t1_iw1t9fd wrote

This is so f*cking depressing.


BollickPorridge t1_iw2bs1r wrote

Is there a clear reason for this? Extrapolating, it could be a sense of impending/potential death (so, passing the name on), but do we know any more on this?


Milamber69reddit t1_ivzvdii wrote

As a person who is named after my father. I find it repulsive to do that. I did not name my son after me and I have told him that it is a bad idea to do that. I can never understand why people do that. Your children are individuals. Their name in your family should show that. If you keep naming your boys or girls after living relatives. They will always be compared to that person with the same name that is living at the same time. A long dead relative name is ok as long as they have been dead for well over 50 years. Then there is no comparison between the 2. Personal opinion. Your opinion can and probably will differ from mine.


WAJGK t1_ivzz4p6 wrote

I think the point of this graph is that these children were not being named after living relatives...


faustianredditor t1_iw1xh15 wrote

Highly unlikely. That's not what the casualty rates of WW1 would look like. The sudden uptick is completely inconsistent with that. Why would you have the same ratio of deceased fathers after one week as after half a year?


DeTrotseTuinkabouter t1_iw0jpq0 wrote

A son will be compared to his father even without the same name.


Milamber69reddit t1_iw3lqz6 wrote

Yes and no. The problem is that when the 2 people have the same name. many people will assume that they are the same people even if you can prove they are different. A bad reputation of the father moves directly over to the son if the son has the same name. It takes a very very long time for the son to overcome any bad that the father may have done if the son lives in the same area as the father. It kind of goes the other way if the son does something bad. But it is not nearly as hard for the father to overcome that. A fathers reputation for good or bad is always transferred to a son with the same name. But the bad sticks around much longer than the good. I have found that I need to live a great distance away from the location of my father for me to not have his information anywhere and any good or bad things he has done to not affect how people see me. I can now live my life without the baggage of another person who has the same name as me.


kingliljanky t1_iw19cc7 wrote

Ah sweet. By comparison (let me stress, by comparison) ima look dope as fuck


ciarogeile t1_iw0fbdg wrote

That’s fair enough, but what if your dad has av really cool name?


FireRavenLord t1_iw0logl wrote

I'm named after my grandfather and I completely disagree. While I'm an individual, he contributed to who I am, both genetically and socially.

Interestingly, my dad is also named after his grandfather. So there's two names that are alternated between generations. I think I'm the 5th with my name but I don't have a suffix.


lady_lilitou t1_iw1bhvi wrote

My mother was named for her mother, which was also the name of her paternal aunt, and an assortment of other relatives on both sides. Her brother was named for his father. Most of my grandfather's brothers named their kids after themselves. When my mom got pregnant with me, the only daughter, my grandfather was "incensed* that she didn't name me after herself/her mother. My mother had grown up as the youngest in a household with three people sharing her name. She told him she'd never inflict that kind of vanity on her kid. (And on top of that, my dad was raised Jewish. They don't name their kids for living relatives.)

Anyway. Point is, I agree with you.


SurroundingAMeadow t1_iw2bdzo wrote

My father-in-law comes from a long line of men sharing the same first name. His mother didn't love the trend, but respected the family wishes, so she and everybody else just called him by the nickname common for his middle name (which she otherwise would've used as his first). Now if anybody calls looking for somebody by his first name they assume it's spam because nobody who actually knows him calls him that.


Vtron89 t1_iw0v7ol wrote

I liked being named after my dad. I feel like an extension of him - as he was an extension of his father - as we all are extensions of our ancestors. I feel honored to carry on the name.


luntglor t1_iw14d8n wrote

what about a father's name used for their first son's middle name?


Milamber69reddit t1_iw3kckd wrote

It is only the first name where the problem comes in. My son has a middle name that is the same as one of his uncles first name. There is so many problems associated with using the same first name for father and son. I have it even worse as my father insisted that I have his complete name so he could have a Jr. It has caused so many problems over the years. I always wanted to change my name but never got around to doing it. Now I just need to live as far from him as I can so I am not confused with him if I go anywhere and they ask for my name.


NarcissusLovesEcho t1_iw1bma8 wrote

I would be proud to have been named after my dad.


Milamber69reddit t1_iw3j8yq wrote

That is very good. As i said. It is my personal opinion based on the problems I have had throughout my 47 years of life. There are many people that have no problems but most people i know have problems. It could be from outside entities or family.


NarcissusLovesEcho t1_iw3mkyy wrote

But why would you find it repulsive for people not in situations like yours to do this?


Milamber69reddit t1_iw3oj4u wrote

I have seen it happen even with my in-laws. My father-in-law and his son have the same first name and it has caused the father nothing but trouble. The son is riding on his fathers good credit and reputation all because people refuse to look into who they are really dealing with.


PappyBlueRibs t1_iw1pf5j wrote

My dad was named after his father and he completely agrees with you. Interesting!


Milamber69reddit t1_iw3ilf2 wrote

In todays world. Having the same name as another relative that has not been dead a long time is frustrating and can cost you time and money. I actually had to threaten a company with legal action if they did not quit contacting me about my fathers bills and medical problems. They refused to listen up to that point.


Zeronality t1_iw1nv1x wrote

This mf above is what happens when you post and live in comfort without even realizing the period... also for the fact that the father died as well...


Milamber69reddit t1_iw3hypm wrote

I understand perfectly. I could care less if they want to honor the father. As the father has not been dead for long enough for most people around that child to forget the father or to have lived around the child for most of his life without comparing the 2. It is and always will be stupid to give a child the same name as a living relative.