Junior versus II???
Hi,I've seen the ''Junior versus II'' question in the FAQ of this site, but I still don't fully understand it.Does the child only need to have the first name in common with any close relative, in order to be called II or III and so on? For example, if the child is called John Robert, and its father is called John Charles, then it is appropriate to name the child John Robert II and its father John Charles I?Or do both the first names and middle names have to be in common in order to be called Jr. or II?I hope someone will please explain this to me.Thanks a bunch! :)-xxx-Marieke
vote up1vote down

Replies

The child's name has to be *exactly* the same as the relative after whom he has been name, in order for him to be a junior, II, III, etc.Which means that both the first name and the middle name have to be the same as the relative's after whom he has been named.If the father is John Charles Doe and the son is John Robert Doe, then the son is not "John Jr.". He is merely "John R." (or, "J.R.", if you prefer that nickname) as opposed to "John C.".-- Nanaea
vote up1vote down
AdditionalOnly a son, with the exact same name as his father's, can be a "junior". A grandson or nephew with the exact same name as his grandfather's or uncle's (where his own father's name is different), would be a "second".-- Nanaea
vote up1vote down