New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesEtiquette lesson in proper use of Jr, II, III
in reply to a message by Merriment MacTicTacToe
"Say his brother predeceases his father (this is just an example, not a suggestion), does everyone still just move up one?"
You mean, if Frank Eliot, III snuffs it before Frank Eliot, Jr.? Frank Eliot, II would still remain Frank Eliot, II.
A "II" is a "II" throughout the lifetime of the grandfather, uncle, or cousin after whom he was exactly named. Therefore, Frank Eliot, III's demise would have no effect whatsoever on Frank Eliot, II's name, because Frank Eliot, II, was named after his grandfather (Frank Eliot, Jr.) and not after his uncle (Frank Eliot, III).
And, before anyone asks, "What if Scott had named his son after his brother instead of after his father? Would Frank Eliot, II then be Frank Eliot, IV?" Well, to by-pass one's own, still living father that way in naming one's child with the exact same name would have been considered "disrespectful" (or odd, at the very least) in social circles which make a point of using all these flippin' suffixes to begin with.
And let's not even get into those families with multiple cousins named exactly after the same grandfather…
One other instance of "II" being used is when a child (such as a "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, II") has been named exactly after somebody famous (who either may or may not still be alive) and the child is not necessarily closely related (or even related at all) to that person. In this instance, the "II" serves to distinguish the child from his namesake for historical purposes. This is the closest that one may get in American society to imitating the European peerage's use of these suffixes, without being pretentious.
Of course, all these rules are based on etiquette more formally practiced in an era when gentlemen were in the habit of leaving their calling cards at the homes of friends, acquaintances, etc. who were not "at home" during the time of calling.
Nowadays, however, it's etiquette, schmetiquette, as many people pretty much do whatever they please when it comes to the use of suffixes after their names.
Two added notes...
I realize that I'd previously said that a son of Frank Eliot, II would (providing all the Frank Eliots are still alive at the time) be a "Frank Eliot, IV" (indicating that he was named after his uncle instead of after his grandfather. Actually, etiquette dictates that, if there is already a "III" still alive in the family, then out of courtesy the child is not named "III" as well. The preferable (and courteous) thing to do would be to break up the sequence at this point by giving the child a different middle name, which would then automatically negate the need for a suffix after his name.
Additionally, a girl should not be given the masculine suffix of "Jr" after her name. Instead, a female child who is exactly named after her mother or other close relative, is always a "second" (spelled out) or a "younger". Although even these suffixes are generally inadvisable for female children, should not be used on wedding invitations or other announcements, and it is really preferable that a female child be given a different middle name than that of her mother or other close relative so as not to necessitate any kind of suffixes following her name.
-- Nanaea
You mean, if Frank Eliot, III snuffs it before Frank Eliot, Jr.? Frank Eliot, II would still remain Frank Eliot, II.
A "II" is a "II" throughout the lifetime of the grandfather, uncle, or cousin after whom he was exactly named. Therefore, Frank Eliot, III's demise would have no effect whatsoever on Frank Eliot, II's name, because Frank Eliot, II, was named after his grandfather (Frank Eliot, Jr.) and not after his uncle (Frank Eliot, III).
And, before anyone asks, "What if Scott had named his son after his brother instead of after his father? Would Frank Eliot, II then be Frank Eliot, IV?" Well, to by-pass one's own, still living father that way in naming one's child with the exact same name would have been considered "disrespectful" (or odd, at the very least) in social circles which make a point of using all these flippin' suffixes to begin with.
And let's not even get into those families with multiple cousins named exactly after the same grandfather…
One other instance of "II" being used is when a child (such as a "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, II") has been named exactly after somebody famous (who either may or may not still be alive) and the child is not necessarily closely related (or even related at all) to that person. In this instance, the "II" serves to distinguish the child from his namesake for historical purposes. This is the closest that one may get in American society to imitating the European peerage's use of these suffixes, without being pretentious.
Of course, all these rules are based on etiquette more formally practiced in an era when gentlemen were in the habit of leaving their calling cards at the homes of friends, acquaintances, etc. who were not "at home" during the time of calling.
Nowadays, however, it's etiquette, schmetiquette, as many people pretty much do whatever they please when it comes to the use of suffixes after their names.
Two added notes...
I realize that I'd previously said that a son of Frank Eliot, II would (providing all the Frank Eliots are still alive at the time) be a "Frank Eliot, IV" (indicating that he was named after his uncle instead of after his grandfather. Actually, etiquette dictates that, if there is already a "III" still alive in the family, then out of courtesy the child is not named "III" as well. The preferable (and courteous) thing to do would be to break up the sequence at this point by giving the child a different middle name, which would then automatically negate the need for a suffix after his name.
Additionally, a girl should not be given the masculine suffix of "Jr" after her name. Instead, a female child who is exactly named after her mother or other close relative, is always a "second" (spelled out) or a "younger". Although even these suffixes are generally inadvisable for female children, should not be used on wedding invitations or other announcements, and it is really preferable that a female child be given a different middle name than that of her mother or other close relative so as not to necessitate any kind of suffixes following her name.
-- Nanaea
1
Replies
Please do not inflict this on your children !!! Amongst the upper classes it is considered extremely pretentious and illbred. It's an indication that one is devoid of class and good breeding. It is an American construct and is looked upon by Europeans as naff and a pathetic attempt to show off, in fact it is a topic of derision and laughter amongst members of good society.
1
Also, don't put in the comma between the name and suffix as in this letter. It should be
Frank Eliot III
and
Frank Eliot Jr.
NOT
Frank Eliot, III and Frank Eliot, Jr.
Frank Eliot III
and
Frank Eliot Jr.
NOT
Frank Eliot, III and Frank Eliot, Jr.
1
Human cloning should mess this up even further :P
1
Ah, but science fiction writer Ursula K. LeGuin has a remedy for that!
In her outstanding short story titled “Nine Lives”, Ursula K. LeGuin introduces a "10-clone" – a group of ten people cloned from a scientist named John Chow. The 10-clone consists of 5 males and 5 females (LeGuin competently explains how a sterile female might be cloned from the cell of a donor male, but how the opposite – cloning a male from a female – could not be possible.)
Each member of the clone is named “John Chow” (males and females included), except that their middle names are taken from the first 10 letters of the Hebrew alphabet: John Alef Chow, John Beth Chow, John Gimel Chow, John Daleth Chow, etc. The males and females have alternating alphabetical middle names (Alef, Gimel, etc. for the males; Beth, Daleth, etc. for the females), and each clone is informally referred to by his or her middle name.
But, not to focus solely on the interesting naming pattern as suggested in this story, the story itself is a brilliant work of LeGuin’s – I personally consider it to be one of her best.
Here’s a little background on “Nine Lives”:
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/ataormina/scifi/works/stories/ninelives.htm
-- Nanaea
In her outstanding short story titled “Nine Lives”, Ursula K. LeGuin introduces a "10-clone" – a group of ten people cloned from a scientist named John Chow. The 10-clone consists of 5 males and 5 females (LeGuin competently explains how a sterile female might be cloned from the cell of a donor male, but how the opposite – cloning a male from a female – could not be possible.)
Each member of the clone is named “John Chow” (males and females included), except that their middle names are taken from the first 10 letters of the Hebrew alphabet: John Alef Chow, John Beth Chow, John Gimel Chow, John Daleth Chow, etc. The males and females have alternating alphabetical middle names (Alef, Gimel, etc. for the males; Beth, Daleth, etc. for the females), and each clone is informally referred to by his or her middle name.
But, not to focus solely on the interesting naming pattern as suggested in this story, the story itself is a brilliant work of LeGuin’s – I personally consider it to be one of her best.
Here’s a little background on “Nine Lives”:
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/ataormina/scifi/works/stories/ninelives.htm
-- Nanaea
1
Must catch up on my LeGuin reading...
Work, thesis, karate, fencing, archery, no time....
Why I remember when I was young and I could read a barrel of science fiction every day...
Whinge, whinge, whinge.
Work, thesis, karate, fencing, archery, no time....
Why I remember when I was young and I could read a barrel of science fiction every day...
Whinge, whinge, whinge.
1
My etiquette is now properly brushed up :)
n
n
1