A new friend told me that he thinks that children who are named after someone exactly but with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. after the name are abused by the naming. He feels that naming this way automatically puts too much expectation on the child, usually a boy, to follow in some ancestors footsteps. He says it's usually rich and influential families who name their sons this way, leaving little room for fulfilling one's own interests and talents; if the ancestor was a tycoon so should the child. He feels family pride is a detriment.
He was so sure of this opinion of his that I had to think about it.
I see what he means, I'm just not sure that he's right most of the time. That's because while naming this way is about class and culture - you could say tribal - I've found such children usually have nicknames that are rather cute and don't carry the burden of the descendant's name except on official forms in adulthood Some of their own friends don't even know that they are a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Also sometimes they choose to go through life with a second or third given name.
Then there's that there are families who are warm, loving, nurturing, and caring for their children and families who are not of all classes and cultures.
However, I did once know a man who was burdened by an authoritarian dad who was a star in the insurance business and disappointed in him because he got a Masters degree and became an English teacher! Though making a comparatively paltry salary, all his friends growing up who "had" still accepted him because they all figured he didn't really have to work and lived off inheritance.
For the genealogist, while a father's son is a Jr. And when the father dies, the son is no longer a Jr. But if he has a son named after him that son is Jr. A numbered name does not imply direct descent. A nephew can easily become a second. A grandchild a third. Some of the families with this tendency seem to recycle given names!
