New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesAdditional...
in reply to a message by Nanaea
I just realized that I'd neglected to factor your grandfather into the equation.
Okay, once more...
When your grandfather (Frank Eliot, Sr.) dies, your father (Frank Eliot, Jr.) then moves up to being Frank Eliot. Your oldest brother (Frank Eliot, III) then becomes Frank Eliot, Jr. And your son remains Frank Eliot, II. If your son should have a son and both your father and oldest brother are still living, then your son's son would be Frank Eliot, III.
But if all the Frank Eliots (including your grandfather) are still alive at the time of your own grandson's birth, then your grandson would be Frank Eliot, IV.
-- Nanaea
Okay, once more...
When your grandfather (Frank Eliot, Sr.) dies, your father (Frank Eliot, Jr.) then moves up to being Frank Eliot. Your oldest brother (Frank Eliot, III) then becomes Frank Eliot, Jr. And your son remains Frank Eliot, II. If your son should have a son and both your father and oldest brother are still living, then your son's son would be Frank Eliot, III.
But if all the Frank Eliots (including your grandfather) are still alive at the time of your own grandson's birth, then your grandson would be Frank Eliot, IV.
-- Nanaea
1
Replies
First I would like to thank all of you for your feedback. It's has been great to read everyone's opinions.
Our family roots have been traced back to the 1600's in America and the 1500's in England. My father, Frank Eliot Jr., is no longer with us. However, he was very well educated in the area of naming etiquette. When his father, Frank Eliot, passed on, my father did not drop the suffix of "Jr." from his name. My older brother, Frank Eliot III, maintained his suffix as well when our father passed on. I believe that they kept their suffixes because that's the way it had been practiced in the long history of the family and to be respectful of the person they were named after.
In my opinion, dropping the suffix after one has passed on is not only disrespectful of the person they were named after but would add confusion to their identities. For example, if Frank Eliot Sr., Jr., II, III and IV were all living and Frank Eliot Sr. passed on. The theory of decrementing everyone's name suffix to one less (i.e. Jr. to Sr., IV to III) is absurd. Singling out loyalty as the exception is also absurd and out dated. Can you imagine how long it would take for someone to change their suffix with all the records their names are on in today world? Also, in my example, everyone would have to wait for their name predecessor to change his name first or there will be two people with the same suffix. This practice of decrementing the suffix if someone passes on may have worked years ago. However, in today's world it is extremely impractical.
Years ago, my father always told me that if I named a son after him, the name would be Frank Eliot II. When one names their child after someone in their family, it's for a special reason. I have yet to see any compelling reason why my son should not be named Frank Eliot II although Frank Eliot and Frank Eliot Jr. are no longer with us.
Wouldn't it be convenient if the conventions/etiquette for name suffixes were standardized for today's world and could easily be referenced.
Again, thank you for your thoughts.
Scott
Our family roots have been traced back to the 1600's in America and the 1500's in England. My father, Frank Eliot Jr., is no longer with us. However, he was very well educated in the area of naming etiquette. When his father, Frank Eliot, passed on, my father did not drop the suffix of "Jr." from his name. My older brother, Frank Eliot III, maintained his suffix as well when our father passed on. I believe that they kept their suffixes because that's the way it had been practiced in the long history of the family and to be respectful of the person they were named after.
In my opinion, dropping the suffix after one has passed on is not only disrespectful of the person they were named after but would add confusion to their identities. For example, if Frank Eliot Sr., Jr., II, III and IV were all living and Frank Eliot Sr. passed on. The theory of decrementing everyone's name suffix to one less (i.e. Jr. to Sr., IV to III) is absurd. Singling out loyalty as the exception is also absurd and out dated. Can you imagine how long it would take for someone to change their suffix with all the records their names are on in today world? Also, in my example, everyone would have to wait for their name predecessor to change his name first or there will be two people with the same suffix. This practice of decrementing the suffix if someone passes on may have worked years ago. However, in today's world it is extremely impractical.
Years ago, my father always told me that if I named a son after him, the name would be Frank Eliot II. When one names their child after someone in their family, it's for a special reason. I have yet to see any compelling reason why my son should not be named Frank Eliot II although Frank Eliot and Frank Eliot Jr. are no longer with us.
Wouldn't it be convenient if the conventions/etiquette for name suffixes were standardized for today's world and could easily be referenced.
Again, thank you for your thoughts.
Scott
1
What happens if...
someone drops out of the middle?
Say his brother predeceases his father (this is just an example, not a suggestion), does everyone still just move up one?
Do the numbers just descend to the next-born, no matter whose child it is?
This is fascinating....
someone drops out of the middle?
Say his brother predeceases his father (this is just an example, not a suggestion), does everyone still just move up one?
Do the numbers just descend to the next-born, no matter whose child it is?
This is fascinating....
1
Etiquette lesson in proper use of Jr, II, III
"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.
"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.
1
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