Does anyone know what the highest numeric suffix following a name - of a civilian, not a Royal or a Pope - is? As in John Smith, Sr - John Smith, Jr - John Smith III - etc.?
Googling found me a guy with VII after his name wondering if there’s anything higher than himself out there. The Straight Dope might be able to do better than that.
Well, according to Miss Manners (a.k.a. Judith Martin), traditional etiquette dictates that you may only use your ordinal suffix while your progenitors of the same name are still alive. So when Joe Rae Billy Bob Armadillo-Thwack Sr. dies, Joe Rae Billy Bob Armadillo-Thwack Jr. becomes Joe Rae Billy Bob Armadillo-Thwack Sr. and Joe Rae Billy Bob Armadillo-Thwack III becomes Joe Rae Billy Bob Armadillo-Thwack Jr. This would seem to put an upper limit on V or VI, and there wouldn’t be many adults running around using anything more than III.
In practice, of course, people seem to delight in these multi-generational strings and since traditional (and functional) etiquette takes all the fun out of it, it is widely ignored.
Also, it occurs to me that it is probably more trouble to change your suffix with banks / government / creditors / etc. than it is worth, so that even if you’ve just become Joe Rae Billy Bob Armadillo-Thwack Sr., it’s easier to keep your visa card as Joe Rae Billy Bob Armadillo-Thwack IV than to change the name.
What if your great-grandfather was still alive, but your father and grandfater were dead? Are you John Smith IV or do you become John Smith, jr.?
I suspect the former.
Henry VIII comes to mind.
Wouldn’t have a Willy or a Sam
Technically if you changed I think you’d be a II, not a Jr since the latter only applies to your father’s name.
I’m still a Jr for the IRS my driver’s license, etc, although my father has died. I was always a Jr. even though I had a great grandfather, great uncle, and second cousin of the same name.
And his son, Louis XIV.
The Scooter Libby pardon occasioned at least one high-profile interview with former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.
I’ve known of several IVs (briefly went to school with one), but never heard of a V who wasn’t royalty.
Really? I would think that would lead to much confusion, especially when referring to the dead. What if, say, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., had become John D. Rockefeller, Sr. upon his father’s death, and John D. Rockefeller III had become Jr.? How would we refer to them now?
Baseball provides an example of the potential confusion. Roy Smalley Junior was born in 1926 and played in the major leagues from 1948 to 1958. His son, Roy Smalley III, was born in 1952 and followed his dad’s lead by “appearing in the show” from 1975 to 1987. Because the “original” Roy Smalley (born sometime around 1900) was not a major leaguer, however, you will sometimes see references to the Roy born in 1952 as “Roy Smalley, Jr.”, as in this page’s entry for January 9, 1974. To add to the confusion, both baseball-playing Smalleys are still alive, and you can’t even clarify the situation by referring to either’s preferred position – both men were primarily used at shortstop!
The Miss Manners columns are available via google books, pages 54 and following.
When I was a wee lad, one of the neighbor kids had VI appended to his name. Yeah, they were aware of the proper etiquette Dr. Drake cited, but as he said, what’s the fun of that?
Not quite what the OP asked for, since he was royal, but it’s worth mentioning Prince Heinrich LXVII Reuss of Schleiz who I believe had the largest number after his name of anyone in history.
Sure beats the pants off Pope John XXIII
I believe there’s a Theodore Roosevelt V and maybe a William Howard Taft V as well.
Judith Martin’s rule on this point makes no sense to me. It creates too much unnecessary ambiguity.
acsenray:
Yes, but it’s so darned polite!
I have nephew with IV, so that is not too uncommon. I met a guy who was a VII, and it was a cause for comment. Yes, The Rules say you downgrade when an ancestor dies, but nobody does that. You get used to a certain ordinal.
So the Junior, Senior and various Roman numerals are actually included on official identity documents?
Are they put on birth, marriage and death registrations too?
Pretty well have to be, to prevent confusion.
In sorting genealogical pedigrees, it’s customary to blow off Miss Manners, whose information is relative to social contacts anyway, and to presume that the ancestors of a given name and surname have an “indelible” right to their ordinal designation … i.e., if the John Smith born in 1478 had two ancestors of the same name, he is John Smith III, his son and namesake John Smith IV, and so on down the sequence, with each appearance of the “John Smith” name accruing one higher ordinal designand. My own ancestry sports a series of John Har®ingtons Sr., Jr., and III-VIII, at which point my own line veers off from the sequence; I doubt this is the longest series, but I use it as an example.
Actually, Theodore Roosevelt V should be Theodore Roosevelt VI, but because of some reason–perhaps Judith Martin’s rule–the president’s father isn’t counted in the numbered series.