To: ladyjane; Fred Nerks
Since you are cut and pasting from a
Wikipedia page. I will cut and paste the following paragraph that you conveniently left out:
Alternatively, Jr's are sometimes referred to as "II". However, the original name carrier relative a "II" is named for is generally an uncle, cousin, or ancestor (including grandfather). The suffix "III" is used after either Jr or II and like subsequent numeric suffixes, does not need to happen in one family line. For example, if Randall and Patrick Dudley are brothers and if Randall has a son before Patrick, he will call his son Patrick, II. If Patrick now has a son, his son is Patrick, Jr. As time passes, the III suffix goes to the son of either Patrick Jr or Patrick II, whomever is first to have a son Patrick. This is one way it is possible and correct for a Jr. to father a IV. Another example involves President Ulysses S. Grant and his sons Frederick, Ulysses Jr, and Jesse. When Frederick's son Ulysses was born in 1881, Ulysses Jr did not yet have a son named after himself. Therefore, Frederick's son was Ulysses III. Ulysses Jr's son, born afterwards in 1893, was Ulysses IV. Jesse's son Chapman was the father of Ulysses V, as neither Ulysses III nor Ulysses IV had sons named for themselves.
141 posted on
03/08/2014 9:12:08 PM PST by
Brown Deer
(Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
To: Brown Deer
Thanks for posting that, I have no idea why it became so contentious. The kenyan was certainly arrogant enough to assume he would follow the British convention. I could name another with similar opinions of himself; acts like a sovereign with a God-given right to rule like King George, but sends back the bust of Winston Churchill.
144 posted on
03/08/2014 9:26:25 PM PST by
Fred Nerks
(fair dinkum)
To: Brown Deer
He bequeathed the name to me before he went back to Kenya...
146 posted on
03/08/2014 9:35:27 PM PST by
Fred Nerks
(fair dinkum)
To: Brown Deer
And while I think of it, here's a composite of Stanley Ann Dunham on the left from 1958, the anonymous model whose images appeared in Exotique Magazine in 1958 in the middle, and Stanley Ann Dunham on the right, supposedly in 1960:
149 posted on
03/08/2014 10:04:54 PM PST by
Fred Nerks
(fair dinkum)
To: Brown Deer
Yes,sometimes Jr’s are referred to incorrectly as II.
The whole point behind Jr., II, and III...has nothing to do with royalty, it was a simple convention to discriminate between two men with the same name.
Years ago extended families lived under one roof. It was common in Christian families to name a baby after a living adult. To discriminate between two or three individuals with the same name the suffix Jr. was used if the child had the identical name as the father and II was used if the child had the identical name of the uncle, grandfather or cousin.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson