Re: Generational naming
in reply to a message by Dearie
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.