New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesGenerational naming
My son Patrick Caleb Shields has just had his first son is naming him "Patrick Caleb Shields II". I know that traditionally his name should be Patrick Caleb Shields,jr - but his father & mother do not care for "jr". I hate to break the rules, but I care more for keeping the peace. Is it ok for the baby to be refered to as Patrick Caleb Shields II or does that confuse the lineage?
1
Replies
How could it "confuse the lineage?"
Years ago there used to be some etiquette books that claimed that if a boy had the exact same name as his father he should be a "Jr." and "II" meant he was named after an uncle or other relative.
As far as I can tell, that idea from the etiquette books has never been the way this has really worked in practice. The huge majority of boys in the USA who have "II" after their names are named after their father, not some other relative, and there is no reason for your son and his wife to use "Jr." instead of "II" if they prefer "II".
The psychological research on this shows that "II" is better, any way. "Jr." can have a negative effect because the word "junior" has infantile connotations and sounds like someone who will never completely grow up. "II" does not have those connotations and so doesn't yield the slight negative influence of "Jr.".
So this is a "rule" which was rather silly, IMHO, and never really followed by the huge majority of people in the first place.
Years ago there used to be some etiquette books that claimed that if a boy had the exact same name as his father he should be a "Jr." and "II" meant he was named after an uncle or other relative.
As far as I can tell, that idea from the etiquette books has never been the way this has really worked in practice. The huge majority of boys in the USA who have "II" after their names are named after their father, not some other relative, and there is no reason for your son and his wife to use "Jr." instead of "II" if they prefer "II".
The psychological research on this shows that "II" is better, any way. "Jr." can have a negative effect because the word "junior" has infantile connotations and sounds like someone who will never completely grow up. "II" does not have those connotations and so doesn't yield the slight negative influence of "Jr.".
So this is a "rule" which was rather silly, IMHO, and never really followed by the huge majority of people in the first place.
1
No there really is no "rule" saying that it if a father and son have the same name that the son has to be a Jr. Actually you can choose not to use Jr at all.
I don't think it confuses the lineage at all. Since II spoken is "the second" which is literally what your grandson is. The second.
II looks much nicer in my opinion, and who wants the nickname Junior? Anyway, as far as my knowledge goes, usually II is used when there is a possibility of there being a III.
I don't think it confuses the lineage at all. Since II spoken is "the second" which is literally what your grandson is. The second.
II looks much nicer in my opinion, and who wants the nickname Junior? Anyway, as far as my knowledge goes, usually II is used when there is a possibility of there being a III.
1
You're right, technically he should be a Jr., but to my understanding using II is for if you skip a generation or name after an uncle or something. So II still is correct I guess, as he is the second Patrick Caleb Shields. It's just weird.
This message was edited 6/25/2009, 1:29 PM
1