3 reasons why Beverly Crusher is the worst for hiding their son from Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek: Picard

She named Jean-Luc Picard’s son after another man she was in love with

If Jean-Luc was onboard with Jack being raised away from him, with no say in his upbringing and no say over his name, then ok. That’s not the case here. Beverly made every decision in the world about their son, and that’s not right. Not in any situation. Important people have children every day, and their children are protected greatly. So there is no logic behind keeping their son away from him that would work.

Yet, still, that’s not the worst thing she did. The thing that will make her irredeemable for all time is the fact she chose to name Jean-Luc’s son after another man. The audacity to think that’s ok. Lying for decades about having a child is gross, lying for decades about having a son, denying him his heritage, and then naming him after someone he has no relation to is damn-near sociopathic.

You’d have to be a real creep to think that’s ok.

But it gets even worse, when Gates McFadden, the actress behind Beverly Crusher explained the methodology behind naming Jack Crusher after Beverly’s first husband.

From Screenrant;

"I can understand that if she had named him John, Luke, or Picard, everyone would have made the connection. Everyone was saying why? You know, so obviously, again, I think it’s about protection. And it’s also in its own way, a signal. Picard would know, [because] Jack was their commonality as well as their own feelings for each other. So it kind of seems very appropriate."

So, let’s look at every reason why her comment makes no sense.

Firstly, she argues that if she had named him after Jean-Luc, everyone would put two and two together. That’s fair. But, where does it say a child has to be named after anyone specific? Call him Asher, or Dasher, or Vixen. Comet. Cupid, Donner, or Blitzen. Tim, Steve, Cheeze Boy, Karlak, Neptune, or Bob. There is a near-infinite number of names that could’ve been picked. None of them had to be John, Luke, Jack, Paul, Ringo, or whatever. That’s a lazy excuse and bad writing.

You don’t need to name him Jean-Luc, but naming him Jack is just gross.

But here comes the contradiction. Beverly named him Jack to protect their son, but also, somehow to signal to Jean-Luc that Jack is his son. What? This is where the “she wanted to protect him” argument dies a death. She named him Jack to signal to Jean-Luc that the child is his, and then decided to let him meet his father.

It makes no sense and it’s such a gross thing to do to a man. I gotta say it again, it’s not that she didn’t name Jack after his father that’s the issue, it’s the fact that she named him after the only other man she truly loved. A romantic rival to Jean-Luc in a lot of ways. And a move that could be seen as a slight against Picard.

Even Jack thinks he was named so by his mother to slight Jean-Luc. Just because Jean-Luc doesn’t see it that way, doesn’t mean she didn’t mean for it to go that way.

Yes, Picard admits that the late-Jack Crusher was his best friend and may have named Jack Crusher the Second the same name Beverly did. That’s fine. That’s great. He would’ve had a say in that. Beverly took away that say. Beverly didn’t give Jean-Luc any say in anything involving his own son.

Fathers are not second-class citizens folks. Jean-Luc had the right to help name his son something he agreed with.