Let’s say there is a man named John Brown. He has a son who he names after himself, so his son becomes John Brown, Jr.
John Brown, Jr. has a son who is now… what? Is it John Brown the First or John Brown the Third?
The Third, of course.
Of course. The third. Is there something I’m missing?
My father was a “Junior,” so I very well could have become a “Third,” but my father decided to name me something else.
I so confused by the obviousness that John Brown III is John Brown III that I’m worried I’m completely misunderstanding the question.
It’s not helped by the fact that the thread title refers to John Brown IV.
My son is a IV. I’ve read (Miss Manners, maybe?) that it’s only proper to use those subsequent letters if all the people are still alive. In other words, when John Brown Sr. dies, his son becomes JB Sr. and the others move up to Jr. and III. We didn’t do that, though.
Are you positing a 4th dude in the line between Junior and Trip who was not named John Brown?
Either way, it comes down to what John and his family decide to call him. If he’s named for the first two Johns, and shares a full name (eg, they’re all John Jacob Brown, not John Jacob, John Jonah, and John James), chances are, he’ll go by John Brown III. He may even go by that if they don’t share middle names.
If the original John Brown is not still around, and there isn’t a non-John between the second and third, then he may go by John, jr.
He may be ‘young John’.
He may simply be John Brown, if the circumstances don’t require differentiating him from his earlier namesakes.
Back story: My dad wanted to know the answer to this because he, for some reason, though that your son’s son might be the first. I have no idea why he thought this.
And yeah, I messed up the title. It should be: how to name your son’s son.
I fixed it for you.
Aw, now I look like a boob.
Moreso, I mean.
I have no idea where Miss Manners got this ridiculous idea, but I’ve seen it quoted here a number of times. Nobody in the history of human civilization has ever followed this absurd practice.
Wouldn’t the answer be “Whatever was recorded on the birth certificate.” Theoretically “John Brown Jr.” could name his own son “John Brown Jr.” or just plain “John Brown” with no suffix. I think that would be really odd, but it could be done.
Yeah, I can’t imagine the amount of confusion that would result in. If you found an old family document referring to “John Brown III”, or whatever, how would you determine whether that was your grandpa or great-grandpa? If you’re writing a biography of a fellow that covers his whole life, what name do you put on the cover?
And don’t worry, KneadToKnow, we like looking at boobs.
Let me take care of that for you…
OFFICIAL MODERATOR ANNOUNCEMENT:
I changed the title of the thread. KneadToKnow’s comment in post #4 was perfectly logical at the time it was posted. Please do not let that comment affect your opinion of whether KneadToKnow looks like a boob.
Here’s a cite for a similar usage in the United States
"The system geneally used for, say, two men named John Smith in the same town, was to designate the elder as “John Smith, Senior” and the younger as “John Smith, Junior.” …
The point where this gets truly confusing comes when the man called "Senior" died or moved out of town. After that point the man previously called "Junior" became "Senior," "Tertius" became "Junior," and so forth. Thus a man might be called "John Smith, Tertius" in his birth record, "Junior" in his marriage record and "Senior" in his death record. It sometimes requires considerable research into a town's records outside of its vital records (and other sources such as probates and deeds) to discover exactly which individual is meant by "Junior" in a particular record. "
If Daddy is named John Brown, he’s “Senior.” Or “The First.” But neither designation is used if Daddy has no children.
Let’s say Daddy produces a son. He is named “John Brown” also. The son is “John Brown, Junior.”
There is an ABOMINABLE practice of calling the son, “II.” So Daddy would be “John Brown,” and his son would be “John Brown II.”
shuddering
We’ll follow through with this. If the son had a son, his child is “John Brown III.” (on a “who gives a damn” note, I went to school with a kid who was “IV.”)
Now, if John Brown, original version, was a really great guy, and for some reason he had no kids–like maybe he died–and his brother, Bob Brown, had a son and named him for the dead guy, Bob’s son would be “John Brown II.”
If John Brown III turns out to be a deadbeat, and has creditors and the law chasing after him, his father and his grandfather need to worry. Because many times the paperwork doesn’t pick up the “Jr” or the “IV” and the folks doing the chasing just see the name “John Brown” and go AHA, WE CAUGHT THE BASTARD.
And John Brown Sr and John Brown Jr might find their bank accounts frozen and their driver’s licenses suspended.
Moral of the story: give your kids their VERY own names!
~VOW
Do birth certificates usually contain suffixes like “jr.” in the first place? I’d imagined that John Brown was the “actual” name, and the “jr.” was just just a convenience for people who have dealings with both of them.
I have a coworker that’s a 3rd. Being a down-to-earth kinda guy, if his baby (due in April squeee!!) is a boy, they’re naming him something completely different.
I have another coworker that’s a 4th. He’s a pretentious snob.
Anecdotal, I know, but I needed to get that off my chest 
My brother’s name is Robert; he had a grandfather named Robert, and has a nephew named Robert, and now that he’s married, he has a father-in-law, and a brother-in-law of that name as well. Sensibly enough, his son is not named Robert…
This happened in my family. The son of “Jr.” was “III”.
A family member of mine has “III” on his birth certificate. I do seem to recall reading somewhere that generational suffixes are legally meaningless under Common Law, though (though I guess that means that you can omit them from official paperwork with no consequence and that putting the “wrong” generational suffix is also meaningless and doesn’t give cause to object to paperwork) I heard that something similar may actually apply to middle names in some jurisdictions.