Philippe le Bel
Banned
@Tonifranz sorry for replying after so much time but the nature of my existence means that I don't have access to the internet all the time 
Anyway, it's not their own name, it's their new, Roman, name. The concept of individuality was not quite alien to the Romans, but it was nowhere near to our concept of it. There is a reason that only a dozen or so male first names were used, and women from the mid Republic through to the middle empire period didn't even have praenomina. The most important part of a name was the family name, and a freedman or new citizen taking his former master or patron's nomen shows that he was becoming part of that family. Not his own name, the family name. Nothing wrong with that, no stigma attached to becoming Roman--quite the opposite, in fact!--but it is not correct to say that a freedman, son of a freedman, or even great-grandson of a freedman could be viewed in the same way as a plebeian whose family became citizens in the 5th century, for example.
Romans were litigious minded, sure, but there are plenty of conventions and simply human prejudices that governed elections more than laws. Money, the behavior of a man's siblings and in-laws, the areas in which a senator had most of his land, a man's ancestors accomplishments, rumors, etc. Freedmen were, hard stop, disabled by the law, but their children and grandchildren were disabled by the social conventions of the time. Gaius Marius was still given grief for being from Arpinum, and his family had been citizens for generations! Senate conservatives argued against allowing Cato the Elder into the senate, because he was from a town twenty miles from Rome! I think that you are underestimating the xenophobic attitude of the Roman government apparatus up until the 80's BC.
Just because somebody succeeds does not mean that their actions are politically irrelevant. Consider the election of Obama (if you'll forgive me). Wouldn't it be ridiculous if somebody two thousand years from now says "Well, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave equality to blacks, and Obama was elected president, so his being black was politically irrelevant" because there's no law against black people being president. You saying that Cato and his father didn't face any stigma is similar. Come on, not to denigrate the trials of non-whites in the US, but you can see how the situation is comparable.
Servius Tullius is a funny example. His father was a god, according to sources, which just makes it another of the interesting legends about the early years of Rome. Probably being a demigod outweighed being born of a slave.
Hardly any difference between patrician and plebeian? It was a far cry from the early days, but as you say it was important for priesthoods, and being patrician made one better known by default. A full third of consuls during the Republic were patrician Cornelians, and this despite the law forbidding two patricians being consul at the same time (no bar to plebeians doing the same). A patrician name, and to some extent a famous plebeian name (like Caecilius Metellus and Junius and Calpurnius and plebeian Aurelius), were often enough to guarantee a victory in elections against objectively better but less "named" (that is, with a less famous or unknown name) candidates.
If I ever said that anything is an impossible barrier, please quote me on it. I don't recall writing such a thing. There are barriers, but I never said that they were impossible to surmount.
Anyway, it's not their own name, it's their new, Roman, name. The concept of individuality was not quite alien to the Romans, but it was nowhere near to our concept of it. There is a reason that only a dozen or so male first names were used, and women from the mid Republic through to the middle empire period didn't even have praenomina. The most important part of a name was the family name, and a freedman or new citizen taking his former master or patron's nomen shows that he was becoming part of that family. Not his own name, the family name. Nothing wrong with that, no stigma attached to becoming Roman--quite the opposite, in fact!--but it is not correct to say that a freedman, son of a freedman, or even great-grandson of a freedman could be viewed in the same way as a plebeian whose family became citizens in the 5th century, for example.
Romans were litigious minded, sure, but there are plenty of conventions and simply human prejudices that governed elections more than laws. Money, the behavior of a man's siblings and in-laws, the areas in which a senator had most of his land, a man's ancestors accomplishments, rumors, etc. Freedmen were, hard stop, disabled by the law, but their children and grandchildren were disabled by the social conventions of the time. Gaius Marius was still given grief for being from Arpinum, and his family had been citizens for generations! Senate conservatives argued against allowing Cato the Elder into the senate, because he was from a town twenty miles from Rome! I think that you are underestimating the xenophobic attitude of the Roman government apparatus up until the 80's BC.
Just because somebody succeeds does not mean that their actions are politically irrelevant. Consider the election of Obama (if you'll forgive me). Wouldn't it be ridiculous if somebody two thousand years from now says "Well, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave equality to blacks, and Obama was elected president, so his being black was politically irrelevant" because there's no law against black people being president. You saying that Cato and his father didn't face any stigma is similar. Come on, not to denigrate the trials of non-whites in the US, but you can see how the situation is comparable.
Servius Tullius is a funny example. His father was a god, according to sources, which just makes it another of the interesting legends about the early years of Rome. Probably being a demigod outweighed being born of a slave.
Hardly any difference between patrician and plebeian? It was a far cry from the early days, but as you say it was important for priesthoods, and being patrician made one better known by default. A full third of consuls during the Republic were patrician Cornelians, and this despite the law forbidding two patricians being consul at the same time (no bar to plebeians doing the same). A patrician name, and to some extent a famous plebeian name (like Caecilius Metellus and Junius and Calpurnius and plebeian Aurelius), were often enough to guarantee a victory in elections against objectively better but less "named" (that is, with a less famous or unknown name) candidates.
If I ever said that anything is an impossible barrier, please quote me on it. I don't recall writing such a thing. There are barriers, but I never said that they were impossible to surmount.