New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Re: significance of "Jr."
in reply to a message by Lorine
According to the etiquette mavens, there are certain strict rules which apply in order for a son to officially be a "junior".
1. He must bear the *identical* name of his father -- first, middle and last names must be exactly the same.
2. His father must still be alive. Once the father dies, the son is no longer an official "junior" -- the "Jr." is dropped from the son's name and he is thenceforth known simply by his first, middle, and last names. So, "Jr." is rarely a permanent appelation.
Regarding the title of "George A. Kicak III" for your son... If your husband bears the identical first, middle and last names of *his* father, and *his* father is still living, then it is your husband who
is "George A. Kicak, Jr." (*not* "II"), and your son who is (provided his name is also identical to both his father's and grandfather's) "George A. Kicak III". When grand-dad dies, your husband's name officially changes to simply "George A. Kicak", and *then* your son will become "George A. Kicak, Jr.".
A "George A. Kicak II" can only occur if your son bears the identical first, middle and last names of his grandfather (or uncle or other close relative), and your son's father has perhaps a different first or middle name.
Hope that wasn't too confusing. :)
-- Nanaea
1. He must bear the *identical* name of his father -- first, middle and last names must be exactly the same.
2. His father must still be alive. Once the father dies, the son is no longer an official "junior" -- the "Jr." is dropped from the son's name and he is thenceforth known simply by his first, middle, and last names. So, "Jr." is rarely a permanent appelation.
Regarding the title of "George A. Kicak III" for your son... If your husband bears the identical first, middle and last names of *his* father, and *his* father is still living, then it is your husband who
is "George A. Kicak, Jr." (*not* "II"), and your son who is (provided his name is also identical to both his father's and grandfather's) "George A. Kicak III". When grand-dad dies, your husband's name officially changes to simply "George A. Kicak", and *then* your son will become "George A. Kicak, Jr.".
A "George A. Kicak II" can only occur if your son bears the identical first, middle and last names of his grandfather (or uncle or other close relative), and your son's father has perhaps a different first or middle name.
Hope that wasn't too confusing. :)
-- Nanaea
1
Replies
I agree with Nan 99%. Only if you're the King of Great Britain, Queensland, and Northern Territories (or P.L.'s sovereign, the King of Southeast Belgium) should you retain the Roman numerals after your predecessors croak.
Many Americans are a bit slow to realize that, but at least we're smart enough to avoid royalty in the first place. (Britain's is only held together by the powerful Matching Hat/Purse/Coat Purveyors lobby. Wise up people! Trade the whole sorry lot for one good orthodonist!)
But I'm not sure about the III-to-Jr bit. My recollection is that it should be III-to-II, which at least acknowledges that there might have been someone bearing your name before your Dad.
I used to be a "II", but coming from a family of dirt-poor illegal alien Scottish coal miners (who despised the Royals and anyone else with money), it seemed unbearably stuffy. I didn't use it much.
Many Americans are a bit slow to realize that, but at least we're smart enough to avoid royalty in the first place. (Britain's is only held together by the powerful Matching Hat/Purse/Coat Purveyors lobby. Wise up people! Trade the whole sorry lot for one good orthodonist!)
But I'm not sure about the III-to-Jr bit. My recollection is that it should be III-to-II, which at least acknowledges that there might have been someone bearing your name before your Dad.
I used to be a "II", but coming from a family of dirt-poor illegal alien Scottish coal miners (who despised the Royals and anyone else with money), it seemed unbearably stuffy. I didn't use it much.
1
"I agree with Nan 99%. Only if you're the King of Great Britain, Queensland, and Northern Territories (or P.L.'s sovereign, the King of Southeast Belgium) should you retain the Roman numerals after your predecessors croak."
@@@@ Yep. Even though every new baby is a little princess or prince in their parents' eyes, at least. :)
"Many Americans are a bit slow to realize that, but at least we're smart enough to avoid royalty in the first place. (Britain's is only held together by the powerful Matching Hat/Purse/Coat Purveyors lobby. Wise up people! Trade the whole sorry lot for one good orthodonist!)"
@@@@ If I was Queen of America, corgis would be *out* and minpins would rule!
"But I'm not sure about the III-to-Jr bit. My recollection is that it should be III-to-II, which at least acknowledges that there might have been someone bearing your name before your Dad."
@@@@ I think the original idea was just to keep the "family name" from ever "dying", regardless, much as surnames today do. But etiquette rules are in constant evolution and flux, and it's likely the "rules" could have changed. I was quoting from Amy Vanderbilt, who now happens to be dead and quite correctly buried. :)
"I used to be a "II", but coming from a family of dirt-poor illegal alien Scottish coal miners (who despised the Royals and anyone else with money), it seemed unbearably stuffy. I didn't use it much."
@@@@ Calling oneself a "Number II" can have distinct disadvantages in Elementary School. Huhhhh uh uh huuuuh. :)
-- Nanaea
@@@@ Yep. Even though every new baby is a little princess or prince in their parents' eyes, at least. :)
"Many Americans are a bit slow to realize that, but at least we're smart enough to avoid royalty in the first place. (Britain's is only held together by the powerful Matching Hat/Purse/Coat Purveyors lobby. Wise up people! Trade the whole sorry lot for one good orthodonist!)"
@@@@ If I was Queen of America, corgis would be *out* and minpins would rule!
"But I'm not sure about the III-to-Jr bit. My recollection is that it should be III-to-II, which at least acknowledges that there might have been someone bearing your name before your Dad."
@@@@ I think the original idea was just to keep the "family name" from ever "dying", regardless, much as surnames today do. But etiquette rules are in constant evolution and flux, and it's likely the "rules" could have changed. I was quoting from Amy Vanderbilt, who now happens to be dead and quite correctly buried. :)
"I used to be a "II", but coming from a family of dirt-poor illegal alien Scottish coal miners (who despised the Royals and anyone else with money), it seemed unbearably stuffy. I didn't use it much."
@@@@ Calling oneself a "Number II" can have distinct disadvantages in Elementary School. Huhhhh uh uh huuuuh. :)
-- Nanaea
1
In America at least Junior is recognized as a real name legally. I've friends in America who even have birth records to prove it.
1
Isn't it sad? Junior is supposed to be a title, not a name. But then again, I used to know a girl named Champange...
1
Yep, I've heard of parents giving their sons the name "Junior" as a legal first name. I've even heard of some parents naming their daughters "June" in the mistaken belief that this is the feminine equivalent of "Junior". Oy....
-- Nanaea
-- Nanaea
1
By extension in the South, we should have girls named Bubbette...and probably do.
1
The only reason I missed out on being a Junior, is because my fathers First name is Robert, his second is Allan, my first is Allan my second is Wayne, Handsome Wagon maker, what a joke, my mom wants to call my little sister Tabbifer Catherine, which as near as I can tell Tabbifer is from Tabitha which means "Gazelle", and Catherine is according to Behind the name, "my consecration of your name".
1