Exactly.
imdb assigns Roman numerals to differentiate. Here are six April Stewart entries…
That’s less a WAG than it is the actual case.
I’m “gdave III.” I don’t style myself that, and I don’t use that “III” if I can help it, but there are official legal documents that list me as “gdave III”, and anytime those documents are relevant, that’s my name.
My grandfather wasn’t even alive when I was born, but my father still used the name “gdave II” - that was the name he had used literally all of his life, and he didn’t stop using it when his father died. And (according to my mother), he insisted that my birth certificate list my name as “gdave III”. He was clear when I was growing up that if I ever had a son, my firstborn son’s name should be “gdave IV”, because that was the Family Tradition.
No bureaucrat ever insisted on proof my grandfather was still alive for my father to continue to style himself as “gdave II”, or for me to be listed as “gdave III”. None of the legal documents or records that list me as “gdave III” automagically updated themselves to match a supposed rule when my father died. It would be a huge hassle to try to get my name changed on all the documents and records that list me as “gdave III”, and might even require going to court to petition to have my name legally changed for a couple of them.
To nitpick the nitpick, I would argue that it should be “the two Misters Jones.”
What if they were appointed to be the Attorney General in different states? Attorneys General Misters Jones?
Mr Jones in that case would be an adjectival phrase, same as General, and you don’t pluralise adjectives.
Traditionally, under the “shifting suffixes” rule, men didn’t use the “Sr.” suffix, since the “ranking” (eldest) William Henry Gates simply went by the (suffix-less) name that defaulted to him.
“Sr.” was for the use of the widow of a deceased patriarch. Since she used to go by “Mrs. William Henry Gates” as distinct from her daughter-in-law “Mrs. William Henry Gates, Jr.”, she needed a distinguishing suffix after her son took over the suffix-free version of the name from his deceased father.
Yes, this made for a lot of re-engraving of personalized stationery. On the other hand, the widow who now used the “Sr.” designation could just hand over her unused “Mrs. William Henry Gates” calling cards to her daughter-in-law, who likewise could transfer her obsolete “Mrs. William Henry Gates, Jr.” cards to her own daughter-in-law when she got one.
Ugh. People can call themselves whatever they want, of course, but to me tacking on Roman-numeral suffixes like regnal numbers in that way feels kind of un-American. The original, pragmatic, purpose of the suffix is to differentiate you from other living family members who have the exact same name, not to proclaim the successive generations of your lineage.
Yeah, this is why the original purpose of the “shifting suffixes” rule isn’t so pragmatic any more.
They apparently can. . But there often is very little difference between being a fee-payer and being a member - usually, the fee payer gets some portion of the dues waived ( the part that goes for lobbying and other political activities) , they can’t run for union office or vote in elections, they can’t be punished by revoking their membership and there may be some benefits available to members only.* Because the number of fee-payers is usually very small , it’s common for people to write and talk about requirements to join a union when there really is only a requirement to pay the portion of the dues that goes toward negotiating, enforcing and administering the contract.
- I know someone whose union membership was revoked. She didn’t particularly care that she couldn’t run for office or vote in elections, but she was upset about losing the “members only” benefits, which included everything from discounted movie and amusement park tickets to a legal services plan and discounts on homeowner/auto/disability insurance