What is the difference between junior and ii

Of course, there is no Naming Police out there to enforce tradition or review the logic of the way anyone names their children! I have a son named him after his Dad. The key thing is to give each son a unique legal name.

I understand that heavy-weight boxing champion George Foreman named five his sons: —- —- George Foreman Jr. You can use these forms of address for any mode of communication: addressing a letter, invitation, card or Email. The child would be Robert F. Smith, II. The genealogy fun starts when someone names a child out of order. Then we skip down a generation. Smith, III. If Robert, Jr. Number three could be father to number five and number four could be the father to number six.

Now, back to my first response, please lets all pledge to prevent men from using Sr. So I named my son after me. He has the exact first, middle and last name. He is now and will forever be the II on his birth certificate and I have no designation as the first on my birth certificate.

Why is it not correct to name your son the II instead of jr? Joe Frye, Naming your son II, is unusual but not wrong. The Jr suffix is used to denote the direct descendant of the original and II is traditionally used to denote a close but not direct descendant, typically a nephew. Your son is the second person in your family, so II makes some sense.

This thread is about the traditional use of suffixes and you can proudly name your son anything you want. The worst that can be said is that by using II instead of Jr people who only know your names, will likely think he was your nephew not son. In doing genealogy research, I read about a 19th Century family that had a first son to whom they gave the Jr suffix but who died as an infant. When the second son was born they gave him the II suffix. The traditional method of using suffixes developed over time to simplify understanding of who was who but the rules, traditional though they may be, are not set in stone.

There is no correct or incorrect anymore. There is just traditional and untraditional. IIs are pretty rare and he will have many opportunities to talk about sharing his name with his father. My best to you both. I want to insure I am clear in this matter. The following is President John F. Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Jr. Robert F. Kennedy, —brother. The traditional rules are that after Jr is born, the next with the name is III, whether a child of Jr or a nephew of Jr.

I am still not certain about this. If I name my son after his father but give him a different middle name would he be considered a jr or do they have to share the same first and middle name for my son to be considered a jr? Lissa, The traditional rule is that the names must be identical, including the middle name. If the middle name is different, even if it starts with the same letter, there is no need for a suffix because the middle name differentiates. Congratulations on your son!

I named my son after myself and his suffix is II. There is no law for this. If the sons name is identical to the father the son should be the II. However, the use of Junior came before all that during a time when if you had a business or assets or holdings of any sort to pass on to your son, it was an advantage to the son to have a name that indicated a direct connection to the good reputation of the father.

Junior meant a close connection that presumably meant that commerce with the son, in whatever form, could be relied upon to be the equivalent of commerce with the father. Junior was simply a way of clearing confusion before it happened. However, as I have said in other posts, all of this boils down to determining what is traditionally used.

There is no law. Tony, Of course. It makes a difference to some people but obviously does not to others. Whether or not you choose to follow tradition is entirely up to you. You can name your son anything you want and choose to use any suffix.

My great-grandfather was, say, Evel Knieval Jones. My father was named Noise Hatchet Jones, Jr. I ended up Blended Elixir Jones. Thanks for any clarification or affirmation you can give!

Blended, You are technically correct in every way, sort of. You have the numbering system right. However, context makes a difference. Presumably Evel Knieval Jones, Jr. You would be correct in that the III is correct for the child with the same name born after the Jr, but with that much time….

It is much closer between Noise, Jr and your son, Noise. There is ample chance for them to be confused, even if only at family gatherings, but he your son would correctly be Noise Hatchet Jones, III. Again you are correct for little Blended. He is your son and is correctly called Blended Elixir Jones, Jr. Now, just to complicate things…… 1. In that case, your first son would be Blended Elixir Jones, Jr.

What about your brother Pacifist Elk Jones? He named his oldest son Pacifist Elk Jones, Jr. Had he done that, your son would still have been Blended Elixir Jones, Jr. I hope that helps. Just had a son, what to name him after my dad and my elder brothers name his son Jr, that means my son would be the II.

Kaagee, Congratulations! Once Jr has been used in the immediate family like this, the next suffix used is III. The suffix II only happens if the child is born before the Jr is born. This is then where the very unusual fun starts. Let me know if I can answer anything else. Many thanks for your clarifications above. I assume that if I want to, like George Foreman, name all my sons with the exact same name, I start with Jr. Steve, Yes and no. The Jr suffix represents a generational change.

The numerical suffixes are the same idea but can skip back and forth between children of brothers, so there is less of a direct connection. On the other hand, if you were to name them all with the same first name but change up the middle name, it might be very, very cool.

Confusing for their teachers, the DMV and probably risking chaos with the IRS, but if you are willing to take that on, why not? It might be fun for them as brothers to share something like that. In case anyone is wondering. This input of the suffix in between first and last name occurs when you have children that all have the same name as the father. And from oldest to youngest would go 2nd, 3rd, and on from there. Mike, When you put something between the first and last names, it is no longer a suffix, but rather is now a middle name.

Suffixes are used when the name, including middle name, is identical. It is unconventional but it is entirely correct from a traditional naming perspective.

The true naming and genealogy fun will come when Mr. I hope they are all George Edward Foreman too. I named my son the II.. Because Jr. Was over used.. He has the exact same name as his father… And is his first born son..

Was it wrong to use II? What you did was, at worst, untraditional. The II suffix implies an identical name, but not directly descendant. In other words, IIs are typically nephews or grandchildren of the person who had the name first. Jr is the only suffix that implies direct descent. All the others from II on could be indirect. The only people who might ever care about your untraditional choice would be genealogists hundreds of years from now and even then, we leave such long paper trails in our lives in this century that those possible genealogists would have to be idiots to be confused.

My best to you. What about the prince changing their whole name to a former king after kingship? Robert, That is an interesting question. The suffixes were the result of trying to distinguish father from son or uncle from nephew. My guess is that just as princes and royalty had to distinguish themselves from relatives, commoners had to do the same. Think of it this way: Say Bob lives by the bridge and another Bob moves into the farm down the road.

Until the new guy came, Bob was just Bob and everybody knew who Bob was. Once the new Bob came into town, people had to explain which was which in conversation. They might have called one Bob Bridge and Bob Farmer. That is just as confusing as when Bob Farmer came to town, so somehow, the suffix system was created so the younger Bob Bridge became Bob Jr.

That is a silly example but you can see how even those far removed from Royalty could wind up with confusing names. R being for the latin word for queen. I have a question my husband has a son from previous relationship with the same name as him so his 1st son is a Jr. But now we are married and having a boy and wants him to have the same exact name.

Your new husband could name both sons the same thing, adding III to your baby, but I am sure it will eventually lead to confusion. On the other hand, if you were to name the baby with the same first name but change up the middle name, perhaps keeping the same initial, it might be very, very cool. Either way, it will be confusing for their teachers, the DMV and probably risking chaos with the IRS, but if you are willing to take that on, why not?

Ultimately, the best name is the one that makes you both happy. I worry that despite having different mothers, it might be seen by some government bureaucrat as fraud. My choice would be either entirely different names or slightly altered middle names.

Tristan, Yes. It is okay. Whatever you choose, I hope you have a happy, healthy child. Jesseka, If your grandfather was named at birth with a Sr, then you are correct. That is his name. However, if he was not born with it, then I am afraid from a tradition point of view, he is not an Sr.

This article and the series of questions and answers are about the traditional use. When a man is born he is given a name and there is no guarantee that he will grow up to father children, let alone father boys or even if he did, that he and the mother would choose to use the same name.

Any subsequent sons, grandsons, etc…who have the same name have to distinguish themselves from the man who preceded them and so they have a suffix.

Sometimes the is easier to explain using kings and queens. Queen Victoria was just Queen Victoria, without a suffix because she was the first queen named Victoria. She was the first and so no explanatory suffix was needed. The suffix is necessary to distinguish her from her ancestor.

A man who is the first in his family with a name does not need a suffix. Everyone afterwards does. However, as the original or previous holders of the name die, the closest to the original can drop their suffix in casual conversation or situations. In other words, if your grandfather were to die, your father, Jr , could drop the Jr when introducing himself, or something like that, because the presumption is that everyone would know your grandfather had died so the Jr would not be necessary.

Your brother though, he still needs to use the III, though because we need to distinguish him from your father and he already has the III on his name. Just as a quick aside, nicknames serve much the same function as suffixes. Out in public, they would be addressed as Mrs. If a man died before his wife, she would still use his name.

Now you have two women, the wife of the original and the wife of Jr, both using the same Mrs name. How do you tell which was which??? The wife of the original takes on Sr, both to distinguish her from her daughter in law and as a mark of respect for being the elder matriarch.

Again, as Ive said before, all of this presumes fathers and sons grandsons, etc live or work in the same area with the same people. I am a Jr and my father and I live miles apart. There is no need since very few people know us both. As for this becoming a bit much, well, that really depends on how closely you want to follow tradition. Three asides: 1.

If someone else in the immediate family had chosen to use the name first, typically a nephew, they would have been III or 3rd and your new son would be a IV or 4th. The II suffix is used for the second person in the family with the name but who is NOT the son of the person who originally had the name, typically a nephew. Which brings me to…… 3. Was this grandfather born with the SR or has he just started using it to distinguish himself from his son with the identical name, the JR?

He is the original and not having a suffix is as much a distinguishing factor as having one. SR is reserved for widows and is unnecessary for men, despite being misused daily by obituary writers.

Congratulations on your new son. Sharing a family name is an honor. Hi, My brother wants to name his second child which is a girl to our grandma. She died years before my little niece was born. Is it ok to name my niece Annie Marie II?? Nelson, The short answer is yes, if his new daughter and your grandmother have the same name including surname. If your grandmother is your grandmother via your mother, she would have had a different surname after marrying than the newborn will have.

Their names were a reflection of who their father was or who they married. This is extremely rare. It would be very untraditional for your brother to give his daughter a suffix and there may be computer forms, maybe even government paperwork, that she may need to fill out that has no place for her to put her suffix, simply because nobody expects a woman to have a suffix.

That said, I personally think it is wonderful that your brother wants to honor your grandmother this way. He or she may have paperwork issues in the future but if he is willing to accept that, then there is no reason not to use II.

Brian Jr, Your legal name is whatever is on your birth certificate. If you are a Jr, then you are a Jr, not a 2nd. Jr and 2nd or II are not the same thing. Jr is the suffix given to the son of the original. II or 2nd is given to the second person to have the name that is NOT the son of the original. For example: Two brothers Brian and Robert. If Brian has a son, he calls the child Brian Jr.

If that happens and Brian then has a son, he can still name his son Brian Jr. Now, imagine that happens. Andrew, I have to hand it to you, you are a very patient man. I have enjoyed this thread and have learned a few things at the same time. Now for my question. When a woman marries and she takes her husbands name, does her birth certificate also change making her new name her legal name? Thank you, Mike. While it would be perfectly acceptable today to call a boy named after his father II instead of Jr, this was not so in the generations of our ancestors.

If you want to follow custom and family tradition, then you should do the same thing. Girls can also be given the suffixes Jr and II, but it is not as common as with boys. It was sometimes done in the generations of our ancestors, but it never became as widely used as it was with boys, since girls took the last names of their husbands when they got married. If a Jr or II was used with a girl, if was often informally, to distinguish her from her mother or whatever other female relatives she had been named after, and only used until she got married when her full name would become different from that of her namesake.

You might find this done with a few girls today, but it is definitely even less common than it was in previous generations. When the same name middle, spelling, and all is handed down for a third time and subsequent times after that, it does not matter if the original Sr was a father or another like-named male relative.

The point, at that point, is that the name is being handed down from generation to generation. It might also signify that a name has been handed down more than once in the same generation. Famed boxer George Foreman, for example, had five sons, and he named them all after himself.

Now that you know the difference between II and Jr, your genealogy research should be much more accurate. You should also have a better idea of naming customs of your ancestors if you choose to name any of your children after them.

Will established Ancestral Findings in and has helped genealogy researchers for over 25 years. He is also a freelance photographer, husband of twenty-eight years, father of four children, and has one grandchild.