David the First

I have a brother-in-law that gave his son his exact name, thus making him “Senior” and his son “Junior.” I worked with a guy that was a third and he was very particular about having the “triple sticks” following his name whenever written. That is what he’d say if it was missing. Seriously.

So, what is with the 3^rd and 4^th thing? Why aren’t there larger numbers like Harry J. Smith the 27^th or John Doe the 43^rd? Certainly mankind has been around long enough. There were 75 generations from Adam to Christ, and if we assume that on average a generation is 30 years, there has been time for another 65 or so since then. So why are the numbers so low? Why is there no Seth the 140^th? I know there was a Henry the eighth, but you don't see a lot of that these days. The highest one that I know is Bart the 5^th and he’s old enough to have a son by now. Is there a Bart the 6^th?

OK, here’s my theory: Not every male has children, and some that do only have girls. (Although every boy born has an unbroken paternal chain to Adam.) And then only a small fraction of those that have fathers of boys have a wife that is cool with the Jr. idea. And even then, he usually only gets to give his name to one of his sons. It typically is the 1^st son, but not always (e.g., Greg Baker.) So each generation has exponentially fewer possibilities to keep the name chain unbroken, but any father can begin a new chain. If you are an 8^th or something, and you have a boy, there has got to be added pressure to keep the string going but that pressure may be neutralized by the fact that names go in and out of style (For example, Bart has seen better days.)