|Subject:||Re: significance of "Jr."|
|Author:||Nanaea (Authenticated as Nanaea)|
|Date:||February 8, 2001 at 1:37:26 AM|
|Reply to:||significance of "Jr." by Lorine|
According to the etiquette mavens, there are certain strict rules which apply in order for a son to officially be a "junior".
1. He must bear the *identical* name of his father -- first, middle and last names must be exactly the same.
2. His father must still be alive. Once the father dies, the son is no longer an official "junior" -- the "Jr." is dropped from the son's name and he is thenceforth known simply by his first, middle, and last names. So, "Jr." is rarely a permanent appelation.
Regarding the title of "George A. Kicak III" for your son... If your husband bears the identical first, middle and last names of *his* father, and *his* father is still living, then it is your husband who
is "George A. Kicak, Jr." (*not* "II"), and your son who is (provided his name is also identical to both his father's and grandfather's) "George A. Kicak III". When grand-dad dies, your husband's name officially changes to simply "George A. Kicak", and *then* your son will become "George A. Kicak, Jr.".
A "George A. Kicak II" can only occur if your son bears the identical first, middle and last names of his grandfather (or uncle or other close relative), and your son's father has perhaps a different first or middle name.
Hope that wasn't too confusing. :)
|Because this message is archived you cannot respond to it.|
|Messages in this thread:|