Ludlow suggests that the name of king Laman was a throne name, such as was Nephi early in Nephite history (see Jacob 1:11):
“Evidently the Lamanites have used the same procedure as the Nephites did in their early history of naming their kings after their earliest leader. Jacob 1:11 mentions that the kings who succeeded Nephi were known as ”second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings.“ Thus it should not be too surprising to discover that the king of the Lamanites in approximately 178 B.C. was still known as ”King Laman“ (Mosiah 10:6), although the original leader after whom the king was named had lived some four hundred years before. Also, later in the Book of Mormon we discover that the son who succeeded this king is also known as Laman.” (See Mosiah 24:3.) (Ludlow, Daniel L. A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon. Deseret Book, p. 181).
Ludlow is certainly correct that both father and son have the same name, and both are kings. However, it is not clear that this is a throne name as opposed to a personal name. The relevant passage on the son is:
Mosiah 24:3
3 And now the name of the king of the Lamanites was Laman, being called after the name of his father; and therefore he was called king Laman. And he was king over a numerous people.
This sounds much more like a personal name than a throne name. Nevertheless, what the name clearly is not, is King Nephi. The City of Nephi clearly came under some kind of Lamanite influence, and one way or the other, the connections to the Nephite leadership line have been lost. It is reasonable to assume that had the people of the City of Nephi continued their political allegiance to the lineage of Nephi, the name Laman would not have been a very popular one for the king.
Since the return of Zeniff is not that many years after the departure of Mosiah, the political and social transformation of those who remained in the City of Nephi has not taken all that long. While the presence of a new ruling lineage, with a new tradition, is apparent here, the cultural shift required to accept a Lamanite king (remembering the harsh words of Enos against the Lamanites - Enos 1: 20) should not have occurred that fast. What we must remember is that the internal dissention between the believing Nephites and the ones against whom Jacob railed was precisely the amount of acculturation to Lamanite ways. The division which split off Mosiah I’s people was down those cultural lines, where the believers went with Mosiah, and presumably those who remained were those already pressing for acculturation to Lamanite practices. We must remember also that this analysis depends upon understanding the nature of Mesoamerican civilization at this point in time (and place) as well as understanding that the descriptions of the Lamanites by Nephites such as Enos are typical of statements about one’s enemies. They are statements of social distance, not absolute historical fact.
Textual: This statement of Lamanite intention immediately follows verse nine’s declaration of the economic activity of the people. Zeniff clearly links the prosperity of his people and the envy of the Lamanites. Thus he specifically mentions tilling the ground as an introduction to what he sees as an incidence of Lamanite greed (see verses 11 and 12).