Is it up to individual families to decide whether they’ll go the Snr, Jnr, III, !V route, or an alternative route, such as using initials to distinguish between different sons with the same first name? Or did dubya revert to G.W. when he ran for office because he didn’t fancy the more direct associations with dad suggested by Jnr?
On a related note, at what numerical stage does the practice generally end? In other words, is IV the limit (a la George Hamilton), or would IX be quite acceptable?
Or does the practice only end when you give your son a different first name?
Or have perhaps American families not had sufficient generations to give a definitive answer to these questions?
A son must have the exact same name as his father to be a Junior – George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush being an example of sharing similar but not identical names.
There is no limit to the possible sequence; I and a couple of other Dopers are descended from John Harington I-VIII, a squirearchy-level English lineage that used the same name for eight generations. (Actually, it would be Sr., Jr., III-VIII; the “I-VIII” is a convenience adopted when referencing more than two generations at once.)
Two of Heinlein’s characters were John Thomas Stuart XIV and Justin Foote XLV.
The process pauses – not ends – if a son is given a different name. It’s quite plausible to have a man named after his grandfather, and in such a case “II” rather than “Jr.” is the proper usage. (E.g., John R. Smith has a son Philip M. Smith, whose son is John R. Smith II.)
Giving a historical example from the Supreme Court that picks up on the first and last paragraphs, John Marshall Harlan was on SCOTUS in the 1890s and famously dissented from the classic separate-but-equal case. His son was John Michael Harlan, who was a Chicago lawyer and city councilman. His son was John Marshall Harlan II, who was also named to SCOTUS by Pres. Eisenhower, and was the leading exponent of judicial self-restraint and strict constructionism after Felix Frankfurter on the Warren Court.
Nice post, Poly, but I’m not sure you’re correct. Miss Manners (Judith Martin) claims that suffixes and numerals are properly used to distinguish only among living individuals (except for royalty). The eldest living John Adam Smith is John Adam Smith I (or Sr.). His son is John Adam Smith II (or Jr.) and his grandson is John Adam Smith III. This is true even if the father and grandfather of John Adam Smith were both also named John Adam Smith. When someone dies, everyone younger re-numbers. I don’t know how commonly this is actually practiced (if ever). (Presumably, the suffixes do not form part of the legal name, in these cases.)
IIRC, Miss Manners also stated that the use of suffixes (Jr., Sr., III, IV, etc.) is only properly used by people of nobility or great stature, and shouldn’t be used by yer middle American Joe Sixpack and his descendants.
I read somewhere earlier this week that Dubya just doesn’t like being called Jnr and so adopted the W. Sorry can’t remember where it was!
Wikipedia does mention this subject when talking about name suffixes.
Well, King Louis XVI of France’s great-grandfather was Louis XV, right? So there was a pause, and it continued even after the death of the elder Louis.
And as for Miss Manners and her Joe six-pack, she’s just flat out wrong (but still may be correct.) True, my father didn’t use the “jr” he was entitled to, but plenty of his friends did. And none of them were nobility or of great stature.
Lots of people call their kids “junior” if they have just the same first name, including yours truly. I was always Rick J____ Jr., not Richard C.
Sean, monarchs are a different thing. Louix XVI is called that so you can tell him from the other Louises. Elizabeth II isn’t called that because she’s named after the first one, she’s called that so in official history you can tell which Elizabeth knew Raleigh and which knew Mick Jagger.
You can’t bring Popes and kings into this. If there was an Ignatz the first in 1600 and the new king in 2004 is named Ignatz he will be Ignatz II. There may even be no family relationship. Look at Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II in England right now.
This is not the sole option. For many people, including me, as soon as there’s a “III,” the “Sr.” and “Jr.” automatically get converted to “I” and “II,” especially if “Jr.” and “Sr.” are no longer living.
Well, IMHO Miss Manners is dead wrong about lots of things. Just because a family doesn’t happen to be royalty doesn’t mean that no one will ever want to refer specifically to a non-living person. This renumbering idea makes it too hard to efficiently refer to deceased ancestors.
With popes, I agree. They aren’t obviously directly descended from former Popes (well, at least not in the last couple of hundred years.) But some royalty are related that way, the French line that I refered to. So you can’t bring Popes and most kings (and queens.)
I’ve always wondered why the baseball is still introduced on PA systems as “Ken Griffey Junior” since his father is long retired. I think I can figure out which one is which.
At UCLA football games we were treated a long time back to “Ken Norton Junior” as if I thought an old boxer was going to strap on pads and play linebacker and now there is “Manuel White Junior” and I really doubt his dad is on the team.
There is one player called “Junior Taylor” but that I can believe.
I have a friend who uses “IV” at the end of his name, but his father is not “III” and has a different first name.
But he makes it a point of using “IV” so I assume his family takes a lot of pride in the name.
Cite? I don’t recall ever seeing Judith Martin saying this, and it is contrary to her general take on ettiquette issues.
She DOES say that the “Sr.” title is never properly used by a living man. It is used by his widow to distinguish herself from her daughter-in-law. Thus: When John Smith dies, his son John Smith Jr. becomes just plain John Smith. The new John Smith’s wife becomes Mrs. John Smith, and his mother becomes Mrs. John Smith Sr.
The question of what happens to Mrs. John Smith Sr. when her son dies and her grandson succeed to the title of plain John Smith.