All of us are familiar with the use of Roman numerals after one’s name to indicate repeated uses of the name within a family.
With the exception of royalty, popes, and situations such as the George Foreman’s (the boxer) children, who are named (as I understand it) George I, George II, and so forth, how far has the use of Roman numerals been taken generationally within a family.
I understand that Tom Cruise (the actor) is a “IV,” being the fourth generation male in his family to have that same name.
Is anyone aware of a “V” somewhere? A “VI”?
I know the gov’t keeps a database of names in which one can find, for instance, the most popular first name for boys, the frequency of the last name “Olgethorpe,” and so forth. Perhaps there’s a database on the use of Roman numerals?
Is this numeral thing only done in America? We don’t seem to go in for it over here. We have Sr and Jr occasionally but I don’t think I’ve seen a (non-royal) British “Fred Bloggs II” or similar.
The eldest living member of the family is “Senior”.
The next eldest is “Junior”.
After that, it’s “III”, “IV”, “V”, etc.
When one dies, everybody below him moves up a notch.
In the US, it’s usually limited to a small circle of close relatives who all have the same surname, the same first name, and the same middle name.
That’s why the president is not a “Junior”. The father is George H.W. Bush, the son is George W. Bush, and that is sufficient difference to break the chain.
It’s less common in Europe, but there are two German princely families (whose names escape me at the moment) who do it. In those families, everyone keeps his roman numeral for life, but they re-start the cycle every century or so.
There’s this guy, who was painted by Rembrandt in the seventeenth century. Every generation after him has named one of their male descendants after him. His great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson, Jan Six XI, is chief of the old masters with Sotheby’s, and recently reveiled that one painting that was up for auction for something like €1500,- was actually a real Rembrandt…
Cite? I’ve never heard of this before. That would make for a series of "II"s or whatever, and the name would never refer to a specific person. I’m almost certain you’re wrong, but I’d be thrilled to see your cite.
I had never heard of this until I read a bunch of etiquette books in high school. I’ve still never heard of anyone who actually changed the initials after their name when their grandfather died. In the case of one Third I knew, his grandfather was already dead, and he was still the Third. I think this may be one of those cases where what’s in the etiquette book diverges quite sharply from what is actually practiced (like RSVPs).
It should be noted, also, that if a man is named John, for instance, and his son is named Richard, and names HIS son John, the second John is a II, not a Jr.
I have a cousin who is William the Fifth. I was hoping his dad would name him something else, but now it looks like we’re stuck with a line of Williams on that side of the family. Maybe the new cousin won’t have any sons.
I’ve heard the “move up a notch” rule my whole life. The Sr., Jr, etc aren’t part of your legal name, after all…no one gets born as a Sr., you see! My dad was a Jr., and he was very, very happy to drop that after his dad died…he’d hated being called Junior his whole life, and while he loved his dad, he wasn’t thrilled with the first name he had, and rarely used it, going by a nickname based on a cartoon character that shared the same last name.
I recall Billy Cotton Jr., a TV executive, being referred to as such to distinguish him from his father, the band leader. He seems to have become Bill Cotton in more recent years, his father having faded from the public memory.
Military histories often use Roman numerals for higher formations and it can get pretty difficult to decipher something like LXXXIX Division as you read down the page.
There’s a Theodore Roosevelt V (who’s actually the sixth TR in sequence) and a William Howard Taft V. (So far as I can tell there was no William Howard Taft Jr. or William Howard Taft II, though. It went from the president to WHT III.)
Only if you’re talking about a father/son set. A person named after an uncle, grandfather, or more distant relative can be a “II.” Such as the recent governor of Ohio, Robert Alphonso Taft II. His father was Robert Taft and his grandfather was Robert Alphonso Taft. Because his father was missing the “Alphonso,” he’s a “II,” not a “III.”
A friend of mine growing up was a “III”. Since his dad was still around and calling him “Walter” would’ve caused some confusion, we called him “Trey”. After he grew up and joined the Navy, he dropped “Trey” and went with “Walter”.
Dunno what happens if he has a Walter IV. Maybe we can call him “Quad”.
Etiquette books are one thing, practice is another. My son is named for his father, although that was not the plan. Said father and I had always agreed that children deserved their own unique names. However when our youngest child turned out to be a boy after 2 girls, (just as the ultrasound said, but in those days you mostly only had one done, and they reminded you that umbilical cords could easily be mistaken fetal penises), his father begged me in the delivery room to name the child after him. In my weakened condition, i agreed, but i did maintain that our son would be styled Ex Husband Name, II and that is what it says on his birth certificate. I know its not whats done, but I hate, hate, hate, the designation Jr, and especially for those poor souls that actually get called Junior. I knew one who was Junior all his long life, and that is just sad and wrong. So I made very very sure that my son would never ever be called Junior. Instead I saddled him with the nickname Boo, which i never intended the rest of the family to use, but such is life. He’s now 6’5" so I don’t think anyone teases him about it anymore.
ISTR reading an article by some manners maven - Emily Post, perhaps, or maybe Miss Manners - who discussed this in some detail. The gist of her article was that:
The suffixes Sr., Jr., and III are preferable and should only be used as their wearers are living. So, for example, the father of J. Martin Briggs III would be J. Martin Briggs, Jr.; the father of J. Martin Briggs, Jr. would be J. Martin Briggs, III. If, and only if, J. Martin Sr. was still alive when J. Martin III fathered a son, then said son would be J. Martin Briggs IV. When Sr. were to die, everyone would move up a notch.
(And this part kind-of annoys me) Unless you’re from an Old Money family or European aristocracy, you have no right to use suffixes, anyway, as they are reserved for use by the upper classes :rolleyes: .