So I gave my son my name. He has the exact first name, middle name and last name. My wife didn`t want him to become a Jr, so we called him the second one. After reading your statement, it seems that we did not follow the rules. He is now and will always be the II on his birth certificate and I have no designation as the first one on my birth certificate. Why is it not correct to call your son II instead of jr? In the United States, parents have some freedom when it comes to naming their children. However, the right to choose a child`s name is subject to certain restrictions. Most of them were introduced either for practical reasons or to protect the child. There is no traditional reason for a Jr to become II.
Just as a person can have their legal name changed for a number of reasons, if a Jr wants to be an II, there are no rules to stop him. I can understand why, if someone found out that their uncle was their biological father, they might consider such a change. I think it depends on how important it is for them to make sure the world knows that the man they thought was their father wasn`t really. My best for you and your family. The father is also supposed to be alive if the child`s name is JR. Now comes the fun part. When Rick Jr. and Rick II grew up and became fathers, the first to use the name was III, regardless of the father. In other words, if Rick II had a son first, that child would be Rick III, and then, if Rick Jr. fathered a son, that child would be Rick IV! Then, when these two men became fathers, the firstborn son would be IV and so on. That is, these are traditional rules and not laws, by any means.
If you want to name your daughter Elizabeth and give her an II because she has an identical name, I think that`s a great idea. It`s not traditional, but if you don`t care, then it shouldn`t matter to anyone else, and I`m pretty sure Queen Elizabeth II. I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he is prepared to accept the Commission`s proposal. Of course, none of these rules are legal rules for appointing. Everyone is free to name a child as they see fit. These are just some of the common and traditional uses of Jr and II. For example, you might follow the example of Phoebe`s half-brother, Frank Jr., on the TV show Friends, who named his son Frank Jr. (though your child probably wouldn`t thank you for that). If there is a situation where there is a Sr&Jr and another descendant goes by the name of the Sr (not a child of Jr), would they be II or III? The real name and pleasure of genealogy will come when Mr. Foreman`s grandchildren.
I hope they are all George Edward Foreman too. Then, if they follow tradition, the numbers start with VII and are in the order of birth, regardless of the birth order of their fathers. It could also mean that a name has been passed down more than once in the same generation. The famous boxer George Foreman, for example, had five sons, and he named them all after him. To indicate where each child fell, George started with Jr., then George III, George IV, George V and George VI (the original George the father was now George Sr). These are old-fashioned rules for naming children, which in ancient times were born out of the need to distinguish people from each other, when there were not as many different names as today. Whereas today, it would be perfectly acceptable for a boy to bear the name of his father II instead of Jr. This was not the case in the generations of our ancestors. If you want to follow family customs and traditions, you should do the same. If these things aren`t so important to you, do what you like most in terms of name. Carlos, I have to apologize for the delay in replying. It seems that the system aborted my first attempt at an answer.
Congratulations on your new grandson! Please remember that this thread is about what is traditional and not what is « good » or « bad ». Traditionally, you should have named your son III and your grandson would have been clearly IV. The suffix II is used for a close relative of the original, but born before the original had the chance to become the father of a JR, usually a nephew. However, you have taken the non-traditional step of using II for your son, which would have traditionally been III. Now that your son is a father, it makes sense for him to name the new baby III, because three follow two. Your grandson is the fourth with the name, but since Jr and II were used in the same lineage, you end up with an offside number. This reflects the traditional use of the suffix system and you have used it in the traditional way, but it does not make what you have done « wrong ». It`s not traditional. If you read the thread, you can see how it is possible for an II to be the father of a III (direct lineage) and just as possible for a II to be the father of an IV if the JR has a child before the II. Whatever happens, I`m sure your grandson will be proud to bear this name. My best wishes to you all.
Andrew Some states have other types of name restrictions — primarily to protect children — such as banning the use of profanity in names. David, If there is already a Jr., then the next person with the same name would be III, whether the child is a child of Jr. or a brother. In the case of the Kennedys, Robert III should have used JPK, II if he had tried to follow traditional rules. Since JPK, He was born after Jr.`s death and there was little confusion about who his father was, it made no difference, but someone had to die young and childless for that not to be the case. When a man is born, he is given a name, and there is no guarantee that he will have children, let alone that he will have boys, or even if he did, that he and the mother would choose to use the same name. This is the original article and does not need a suffix at all, as there is no need to distinguish it from anyone. All subsequent sons, grandchildren, etc. who bear the same name must be different from the man who preceded them, and therefore have a suffix.
Sometimes it`s easier to explain with kings and queens. Queen Victoria was just Queen Victoria, without suffix, because she was the first Queen named Victoria. They could have called them Queen Victoria II or III or even IV, but why would they? It was the first and therefore no explanatory suffix was needed. The current Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II, uses the suffix II because there used to be a Queen Elizabeth. The suffix is necessary to distinguish them from their ancestor. A man who is the first in his family with a name does not need a suffix. Everyone after that does. However, if the original or previous holders of the name die, the people closest to the original may drop their suffix in random conversations or situations. In other words, if your grandfather were to die, your father (Jr.) could drop the Jr when he shows up, or something like that, because the assumption is that everyone would know that your grandfather is dead, so the Jr wouldn`t be necessary.