[MediaMole]

From my understanding, from III and up, it is not indicative of anything, but using II rather than Jr. indicates one of two things — illegitimacy or that a child was named for a close, living relative who was not his father.

[Eroteme]

Ot it could be merely indicative of someone who thought “The Second” sounded more impressive than Junior. I don’t think the State of Hawaii has an Emily Post Compliance Agency to enforce trraditional naming conventions.

Besides, Barack Obama IS supposed to be the Second Coming, right? How very prophetic of Stanley et al.

[Gabz]

From my understanding, from III and up, it is not indicative of anything, but using II rather than Jr. indicates one of two things — illegitimacy or that a child was named for a close, living relative who was not his father.

I know more than one child that is II rather than junior and they are all named for their father and none are illgitimate.

[Eepsy]

I always thought it was indicative of the parents not wanting their kid called “Junior” all the time.

[Fundamentally Fair]

From my understanding, from III and up, it is not indicative of anything, but using II rather than Jr. indicates one of two things — illegitimacy or that a child was named for a close, living relative who was not his father.

All it indicated for me was that my dad didn't want anybody calling me "Junior."