New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Additional...
in reply to a message by Nanaea
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