PDA

View Full Version : Name suffix conventions


mwphelps
16 March 2009, 12:20 PM
I came across a situation where a father named his son by his own name, thus using the Sr. / Jr. labels in the name suffix field for the 1900 census. No problem.

Thirty years later, the former Jr. is now a father, and he has his own son, also by the same name. So they use the Sr. / Jr. labels at that time in the 1930 census. But how does one record these three names if they don't use the more typical "III" label for the grandson of the first Sr?

I realize that the middle generation man stopped being "Jr." when his father died, but in a data base, that technicality is not easy to capture in the fixed name fields. I suppose I could use (II) for the middle generation and (III) for the grandson (as opposed to II or III (without parentheses)), to indicate the younger men did not use the roman numerals.

Any suggestions in this regard would be appreciated.

Steve W. Jackson
16 March 2009, 04:46 PM
I came across a situation where a father named his son by his own name, thus using the Sr. / Jr. labels in the name suffix field for the 1900 census. No problem.

Thirty years later, the former Jr. is now a father, and he has his own son, also by the same name. So they use the Sr. / Jr. labels at that time in the 1930 census. But how does one record these three names if they don't use the more typical "III" label for the grandson of the first Sr?

I realize that the middle generation man stopped being "Jr." when his father died, but in a data base, that technicality is not easy to capture in the fixed name fields. I suppose I could use (II) for the middle generation and (III) for the grandson (as opposed to II or III (without parentheses)), to indicate the younger men did not use the roman numerals.

Any suggestions in this regard would be appreciated.
If I had named my son as a Jr (I tried, the wife stopped me), that would've been his legal name. But I would only have been a Sr if I had legally changed my name to reflect the suffix. Given that it takes a legal name change action to officially add the suffix, it's also incorrect to presume that a person stops being a Jr when the father dies. So it's really more a question of whether you're dealing with the presumptive use of suffixes or with the actual, legal application of them.

= Steve =

John M. Leggett
16 March 2009, 11:15 PM
I came across a situation where a father named his son by his own name, thus using the Sr. / Jr. labels in the name suffix field for the 1900 census. No problem.

Thirty years later, the former Jr. is now a father, and he has his own son, also by the same name. So they use the Sr. / Jr. labels at that time in the 1930 census. But how does one record these three names if they don't use the more typical "III" label for the grandson of the first Sr?

I realize that the middle generation man stopped being "Jr." when his father died, but in a data base, that technicality is not easy to capture in the fixed name fields. I suppose I could use (II) for the middle generation and (III) for the grandson (as opposed to II or III (without parentheses)), to indicate the younger men did not use the roman numerals.

Any suggestions in this regard would be appreciated.

My legal name is John McGee Leggett, Jr. as that is what appears on my birth certificate dated April 22, 1928. I was named (by my mother) for my father, John McGee Leggett (1889-1960). For many years before I was born he was called "Jack Leggett" and that continued until he died. He never used the suffix "Sr" for that reason and also because he was not legally "Sr". I have always been called John and never used "Jr" except for legal purposes and/or on formal occasions. My oldest son, is John Ashley Leggett, named for his maternal grandfather, not for me. But he has been referred to (incorrectly) as, John Jr. or John II or John III.

My great-grandfather was named John Wesley Leggett and his first son was named James Walter Leggett. The latter was often referred to as J.W. Leggett, Jr. To further complicate matters, James Walter Leggett had a son who he named John Wesley Leggett and who sometimes was called J.W. Leggett, Jr., with his father (James) now being J.W. Leggett, Sr.

I have a brother-in-law whose first and middle names are George Mason but he was always called Jack and generally signed his name as such. I have a friend whose legal first and middle names are Earl Alexander, but he does not like either of them so he goes by the name "Al" as does another friend whose real name is Elwood.

My point is that in genealogy clarity and accuracy require the use of one's legal name and, if necessary, an explanation that may include an AKA reference. What was entered in a census or the death of a father does not change either one's legal name or the need for clarity.

It seems to me that to add suffixes that are not part of a legal name only further confuses the situation.

Stephen Hill
17 March 2009, 08:28 PM
...It seems to me that to add suffixes that are not part of a legal name only further confuses the situation.I have three Stephens in a line. Myself, my father, my grandfather. I have labeled us as Stephen I, II, III. Very handy to know who you are talking about when writing by email etc. Identifying who you are talking about is the most important thing about naming that is why we name people.

John M. Leggett
19 March 2009, 01:49 AM
I have three Stephens in a line. Myself, my father, my grandfather. I have labeled us as Stephen I, II, III. Very handy to know who you are talking about when writing by email etc. Identifying who you are talking about is the most important thing about naming that is why we name people.

If it works for you, fine. Many others do something similar including English royalty, popes, etc. although in such cases there is a system for keeping track of the numbers over many generations. That is not the case for us ordinary folks.

Note that in my post I referenced my father with (1889-1960) and myself as born in 1928. These are unchanging historical facts that differentiate us, not a designation which may change over time on in usage such as Sr. and Jr. or have meaning only in certain circumstances.

AE Palmer
19 March 2009, 11:02 PM
If it works for you, fine. Many others do something similar including English royalty, popes, etc. although in such cases there is a system for keeping track of the numbers over many generations. That is not the case for us ordinary folks.

// cut //


It is nice to see input from others on this topic. Since I do not have a fetish for legal versions of naming succeeding generational appellations, I use a Sr., Jr. III, IV, etc.

That said, I will introduce another wrinkle to this type of problem

Steve W. Jackson
20 March 2009, 01:46 PM
[QUOTE=AE Palmer]It is nice to see input from others on this topic. Since I do not have a fetish for legal versions of naming succeeding generational appellations, I use a Sr., Jr. III, IV, etc.

That said, I will introduce another wrinkle to this type of problem

Betty Miessner
20 March 2009, 07:00 PM
It is nice to see input from others on this topic. Since I do not have a fetish for legal versions of naming succeeding generational appellations, I use a Sr., Jr. III, IV, etc.One solution in our family, back in the eighteenth, early nineteenth, centuries was to identify sons by their father's initial, for instance, Thomas of T.(homas), Joseph of J.(oseph).

As to Sr/Jr: it took me a while to identify the fathers of first cousins who were given the same first names (James). The younger of the two called himself "James Jr" but his father was not James Sr, he was Francis. The older James was the son of John.


Betty

martha
21 March 2009, 04:25 AM
[QUOTE=AE Palmer]It is nice to see input from others on this topic. Since I do not have a fetish for legal versions of naming succeeding generational appellations, I use a Sr., Jr. III, IV, etc.

That said, I will introduce another wrinkle to this type of problem

AE Palmer
23 March 2009, 11:49 PM
That is one solution to this conundrum, but then you need to remember who A, B and C are. My solution is to put the mother's name in brackets after the repeated same first name of the child. I would put [Katherine bat Chana], [Katherine bat Dvorah] and so forth, for instance. (In Hebrew, "bat" means "daughter of")

Martha

Since none of my ancestors were Jewish, using bar & bat does not help much.

That said, the A, B and C are added as a suffix simply to identify the order of birth (and death). Besides, in the case I cited, there were three (3) sets of children with the same names. (I do have all of their names and DOBs.) To make matters worse, two of the sets were by the same mother!

STEVE
24 March 2009, 11:10 AM
One solution in our family, back in the eighteenth, early nineteenth, centuries was to identify sons by their father's initial, for instance, Thomas of T.(homas), Joseph of J.(oseph).

As to Sr/Jr: it took me a while to identify the fathers of first cousins who were given the same first names (James). The younger of the two called himself "James Jr" but his father was not James Sr, he was Francis. The older James was the son of John.


Betty

In my world, Sr. & Jr. are strictly father and son only, and always. For situations where I need to identify people with the same names. If you see I and II, III... that is birth order naming while 1, 2, 3, 4...is just a way of telling one Nathan BYARS from another. In my work Sr. and Jr. are used when working with living or recently living people. I, II, III... are used in older lines where most of the earlier people are dead.