New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Junior vs. II
in reply to a message by Arthur
Some time ago I was putting together a FAQ to answer the questions that are most often emailed to me (and posted on this message board). I got sidetracked and never finished it off. This question and others are answered there.
You can preview it at:
http://www.behindthename.com/faq.html
You can preview it at:
http://www.behindthename.com/faq.html
1
Replies
Hehe, I see you have a link with the Kabalarians :P
1
Arthur has it figured right, and Nan, IMHO, is 98% right. The only point she makes that I'd question is that when an elder kicks off, a "III" could become EITHER a "Jr" or a "II".
To me, "Jr" implies there was never anyone of the same name extant concurrently with the "III" except the father. The "II" leaves open the possibility there were predecessors to the father.
I know -- debatable, nitpicky point, from a former "II" who never used it. Actually, Major, Magnus, and Minor (like same-named boys in a Brit public school) would be classier. But why bother?
To me, "Jr" implies there was never anyone of the same name extant concurrently with the "III" except the father. The "II" leaves open the possibility there were predecessors to the father.
I know -- debatable, nitpicky point, from a former "II" who never used it. Actually, Major, Magnus, and Minor (like same-named boys in a Brit public school) would be classier. But why bother?
1
Errata in the last paragraphI
My bad. Distinguishing three pupils of the same name would be Maximus, Magnus, and Minimus. Major and Minor (no Magnus) would be used to distinguish two.
But again, why bother?
My bad. Distinguishing three pupils of the same name would be Maximus, Magnus, and Minimus. Major and Minor (no Magnus) would be used to distinguish two.
But again, why bother?
1
Do I get a point for this, Mike? :)
Just a small correction to your FAQ on juniors...
"The Junior must be the child of the parent, not a grandson or granddaughter."
******Okay.
"The names must be exactly the same, including the middle name."
******Okay.
"The parent must still be living. Once the parent dies the Junior becomes a 'II'."
******Nuh-uh. At least, not according to the etiquette books I was brought up on. :) A "Junior" never becomes a "II" when his father dies -- he simply drops the "Jr." appellation. It is a "III" who becomes a "Jr." or a "II" when the original name-bearer dies. The reason why one "moves up" in numbering, is because numeral appellations are neither inherited nor permanent -- unless you happen to be royalty. :)
"II is used whenever any ancestor, including for example a grandfather or a great-uncle, shares the same name as the child."
******Okay.
-- Nanaea
Just a small correction to your FAQ on juniors...
"The Junior must be the child of the parent, not a grandson or granddaughter."
******Okay.
"The names must be exactly the same, including the middle name."
******Okay.
"The parent must still be living. Once the parent dies the Junior becomes a 'II'."
******Nuh-uh. At least, not according to the etiquette books I was brought up on. :) A "Junior" never becomes a "II" when his father dies -- he simply drops the "Jr." appellation. It is a "III" who becomes a "Jr." or a "II" when the original name-bearer dies. The reason why one "moves up" in numbering, is because numeral appellations are neither inherited nor permanent -- unless you happen to be royalty. :)
"II is used whenever any ancestor, including for example a grandfather or a great-uncle, shares the same name as the child."
******Okay.
-- Nanaea
1
Sure, I'll add it to the total
but since you're correcting material that's in progress you only get 3/4 of a point. ;)
but since you're correcting material that's in progress you only get 3/4 of a point. ;)
1
You're killin' me with these fractions, Mike! LOL!
Okay, here's the online reference you'd asked for in e-mail. It's from somebody writing on RootsWeb, and quoting from the same exact passage of *Amy Vanderbilt's Etiquette* that I rely upon in matters such as these:
> "A man who is a Jr., a II, a III or possibly a IV, usually needs
> to take action when the preceding holder of the name dies. A 'Jr.'
> usually drops the 'Jr.' unless there would be what I call a
> confusion in history. In other words, if the father were so well
> known and perhaps [the Jr.] himself is so well known that to drop
> the 'Jr.' might cause public confusion. As the man who is called
> 'II' is NOT named for his father BUT FOR SOMEONE ELSE, perhaps an
> uncle or a grandfather of the same name, he drops his suffix on
> the death of the holder of the name unless there is a possibility,
> too, of a confusion in history."
Your online reference can be found here:
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/roots-l/messages/96aug/3840
-- Nanaea
Okay, here's the online reference you'd asked for in e-mail. It's from somebody writing on RootsWeb, and quoting from the same exact passage of *Amy Vanderbilt's Etiquette* that I rely upon in matters such as these:
> "A man who is a Jr., a II, a III or possibly a IV, usually needs
> to take action when the preceding holder of the name dies. A 'Jr.'
> usually drops the 'Jr.' unless there would be what I call a
> confusion in history. In other words, if the father were so well
> known and perhaps [the Jr.] himself is so well known that to drop
> the 'Jr.' might cause public confusion. As the man who is called
> 'II' is NOT named for his father BUT FOR SOMEONE ELSE, perhaps an
> uncle or a grandfather of the same name, he drops his suffix on
> the death of the holder of the name unless there is a possibility,
> too, of a confusion in history."
Your online reference can be found here:
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/roots-l/messages/96aug/3840
-- Nanaea
1
Oops, amendment....
"II is used whenever any ancestor, including for example a grandfather or a great-uncle, shares the same name as the child."
Should be:
"II is used whenever any LIVING, CLOSE RELATION, including for example a grandfather or a great-uncle, shares the same name as the child."
-- Nanaea
"II is used whenever any ancestor, including for example a grandfather or a great-uncle, shares the same name as the child."
Should be:
"II is used whenever any LIVING, CLOSE RELATION, including for example a grandfather or a great-uncle, shares the same name as the child."
-- Nanaea
1