C. writes:
We are considering using my husband’s grandfather’s name, Edward Lachlan Brenner for our second son due this May. From what I understand, this child would be considered a second…is this correct even though it skipped two generations AND we already had a first born son (Lucas James)?
I’m concerned it’s not acceptable since we already have a son and I worry as our first son gets older, he might feel he deserved this name instead (even though his middle name is after my FIL). In all honestly, we just didn’t consider the option the first time around!
What do you think??
While the suffix “Jr.” is given only to the son or daughter of the namesake, the suffix “II” is specifically intended for use by a grandchild, nephew/niece, etc., and so the number of generations in between is not an issue.
Your son’s own birth order is also unimportant: suffixes don’t require the holder of them to be the firstborn, and the explanation “We just didn’t think of it the first time!” is a good one. While it’s possible your firstborn will later wish he’d been given the name, my guess is that it won’t be an issue—or if it does come up, the explanation is a good one for him, too. The balance works well: only two of his three names match the honoree’s, but the honoree is a generation closer.
I’d suggest naming him for your husband’s grandfather without making him a II: the suffix is optional, and is mostly to help avoid confusion. If the namesake is three generations older and has a different address, I doubt there will be any confusion to avoid. And if you’re concerned others will think it’s inappropriate to use the honor name for a second son, not using the II will keep most people from even turning their minds to the issue.
I’ll add that traditionally, the suffix was used only while the original person with the name was still alive. For example, once grandpa William James Smith passed away, grandson William James Smith II would drop the second and become just William James Smith. The exception would be people from Royal families or when the original William James Smith was very well-known/prestigious. So, something to consider is if your husband’s grandfather has already passed away, you would not use the designation anyway. In that case, your son is a namesake, but not “the second.”
I noticed your son has your father in law’s name & now this son will be a complete namesake for someone else in your husband’s family. I assume the surname is also your husband’s. Are there any names from your family you would like to use? Perhaps you could combine something from your family with either Edward or Lachlan. Feels a bit more balanced to me as far as representing both sides of the family, and it might eliminate any hesitations or confusion about having an exact namesake for your husband’s grandfather.
If you want to use the name sake I wouldn’t add II on the end- it doesn’t seem necessary and to my ear, it has a bit of a “stuffy” vibe.
Definitely don’t use the “II” suffix. There really is no need for it.
I agree that the suffix isn’t needed….and it might seem a bit pretentious to use it. I love the name Edward Lachlan (Lachlan is so unusual in the States that I’m wondering if your husband’s grandfather lived elsewhere or was born in Scotland). I had the same thoughts as the poster above regarding both sons’ honor names coming from your husband’s side. However, maybe it’s customary in your families for boys to be named after their father’s side and girls after their mother’s… or you may just prefer that arrangement. Either way, Edward Lachlan is a fine name. Do you have a nickname in mind for him? (My son Edward was called Teddy when young, eventually Ted.)