If John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy were alive and, in 2003, adopted a Black child and changed his name to ‘John Kennedy,’ would he then be ‘John Kennedy the Third’? Or No since the kid is not biologically theirs?
You can name your child with as many roman numerals as you like. It’s just pretentious.
Which is why I named my son Lucifer XLII.
Tap for spoiler
Because he’s my 42nd child. Don’t tell the other 41 that I have a favourite.
Elon, that you?
Here’s a million dollars to shut the fuck up, pleb.
That’s the same name my kid has. Why is this name so popular??? We usually refer to him by his nickname, Cricket, though.
So that’s YOUR kid? He did so well until we walked into the bar. Used to be a priest, now look at him. I’m sorry that happened to your kid, friend.
You can be born with a name, but not in the same sense that you’re born with kidneys. It’s okay to refer to the kid by whatever name makes everyone feel good.
I’m sure there are people who would say it’s not allowed, but I don’t see why not. The family can do whatever they what, doesn’t matter what other people think.
No nobility involved? The mob does just as they like.
Seeing as people can change their own name to whatever they want, including if there is no preceding generation with that name, then no, there’s no particular issue with suffixes on names.
I’d like to point out that in the English-speaking world, the English (and now British) Monarchy increments the generation number without regard for the immediately preceding generation. As in, Elizabeth II was crowned 300+ years after Elizabeth I. So it is well accepted that ordering doesn’t necessarily matter and there is no hard rule against it.
It’s different between monarchs and regular people. Kings and queens are known by their first name. Lizzy was the second Elizabeth on the throne, thus Elizabeth II. For private individuals, the distinction is because of the assumption the predecessor is alive while Junior and The Third are around and are used to avoid confusion.
Kings and queens are known by their first name
I can concede this.
the distinction is because of the assumption the predecessor is alive while Junior and The Third are around
Whereas this cannot possibly make sense, because knowing which person is which would still be relevant after they’re all dead. See Pliny The Elder versus Pliny The Younger, Alexander Dumas (father vs son), and MLK (senior and junior).
At the time of naming, Senior is usually still alive and the same is often true for the grandchild. While it is indeed true that distinguishing between two people is useful after death, I’d say it’s more happy accident than not since people tend to not think that far into the future. Not saying it doesn’t happen at all, only that it wouldn’t be the primary reasoning behind the convention.
squints I can’t tell if this is a real question or not
This seems like a case of it doesn’t matter. If I adopt a child and raise it, it is mine and can inherit my name. Idgaf
it, it is mine
…
Are your children not yours?
Are your adopted pets not yours?
No, just a white couple adopting a Black kid and then saying, ‘It is mine,’ may not go over well.
Why? I know a white couple that adopted two kids from Africa and they call them theirs…I don’t see a problem.
He’s being pedantic over the ‘it’ in the sentence, not the possessive statement.
OP should have used “zey.”
Much more appropriate than “Zat is mein kinder”
