I suppose it's up to the widow.

My mom was widowed years ago and prefers to be addressed as Ms. OTW Mama. She'll take either Ms. or Mrs., but still points out that she is no longer married and prefers "Ms.".

It was on line and I am confident it was not a site by Miss Manners or Emily Post. Which is why I wasn't sure. Again, I was taught that a widow should be referred to as Mrs. John Doe or Ms. Jane Doe. I just wasn't sure if the other (Mrs. Jane Doe) was correct as I had been told.

And isn't it also correct that if John Doe, Senior passes, and there is no Mrs. John Doe, Senior, then John Doe, Junior should drop "Junior".

He should - but often times doesn't. It's one of those rules that hardly anybody knows about and it DRIVES ME CRAZY. And in the case of a country's ruler, or a famous person (who might need to be differentiated from his father) I think the rule doesn't apply (at least in a de facto way).

Technically that is correct that the everybody moves up a number when someone in the lineage dies. However, I knew a Thornton Waldo Burgess V who was the great-great-grandson of the children's author with the same name. The person I knew should have been III as both the great-great and the greatgrandfather were deceased but everybody kept their numerals to honor the original TWB.

Yes, you're probably right about the reference being to the first Alpha Gam house, you're absolutely correct that Alpha Phi had the first sorority house. The thing I was more focused on at that point in the conversation was along the lines of trends being bucked, that plans for a building fund were started in 1909, before women even had the vote.

I know of a few "juniors" who continue to use junior out of respect to their Daddy. Most of these juniors are in situations where he lives in the same town or area where he was reared. Or because of professional or social situations where his Daddy was known by the same people as "John Doe, Senior".

As well-trained as I am by my mother, this is actually a rule I didn't know. I completely understand someone keeping their "number" designation in deference to their predecessors. To be honest, I would think it kind of strange for someone to be "the 3rd" his whole life and then make the switch to being "the 2nd" at some point because his grandfather died. Seems a bit morbid, actually. (and changing all your IDs, credit cards, etc., ugh, headache ;))

Hence the famous person exception.

Again, I am only going off of memory here, but as I recall, the concept is that when "junior" is born, he isn't legally given *Junior* as part of his official name. That both Senior and Junior are used to differentiate between the two while both are alive. However, if *Junior* is included in his legal name, then he legally should continue to use it. Even after Senior passes.

I am also under the impression that a 2nd (i.e. John Doe II) was to be given to a relative that was not a direct son of John Doe. For example, John Doe might be blessed with a bounty of lovely and intelligent daughters. Yet no sons. However, his dear brother Fredrick, has two sons. Fredrick, to keep his brother's name "alive" within the family, might name one of his sons John Doe II. So for example, Fredrick Doe, Senior's sons would be Fredrick Doe, Junior, and John Doe II. (Or it could be visa versa.) And this is where I have heard of a 2nd or a 3rd retaining their 2nd or 3rd. Because they are not in the direct lineage of the "original" John Doe. Thus when John Doe passes, the 2nd does not become a 1st nor does he become a "Senior". Nor would his son, the 3rd, "move up" to become a 2nd.

It may also be that *V* was given his "number" legally. I have relatives that have their "number" as part of their legal name. As such, it did not "go up" when their elders passed.

Ahhhh, ok, now I'm understanding more. That was what was confusing me the most, I know Jrs. and 3rds whose numerals are actually part of their legal name. So just "moving up a number" seems really strange. But I see what you were saying before now, those who are just "designated" the 3rd or the 4th, etc., move up rather than those NAMED a 3rd, etc...

Actually, I would guess that part of the reason people have continued to retain "Jr.," "III," and other such suffixes these days is for just the reason you state at the beginning of your post. Partially to honor people or to avoid confusion, partially because of a lack of knowledge about the traditional rules, but also partially because of the vast changes in the law affecting legal names. With legal documents and records like driver's license, social security number, etc., being so crucial to legal personhood these days, the laws regarding name changes have become much more crystallized. Thus dropping the "Jr." probably has implications for you legally in changing your name these days.

I know this because of issues dealing with women's rights/feminism etc. Traditionally in common law people could pretty much adopt whatever name they wanted. They didn't have to go register at the courthouse. For example, people in colonial America that wanted to switch genders could just start calling themselves by a different name. (There is a very famous case of this from Virginia by a person called Thomas/Thomasina.) This was pretty much the common law standard until the 20th century with the advent of far more advanced kinds of record-keeping and the government needing to track a person throughout their life (IRS, social security, etc.). This was seen in the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s by women who wanted to retain their maiden names but were legally challenged by others who claimed they had to adopt their husband's name. The feminists argued on the basis of very old common law that they could just use whichever name they wanted without going through a formal legal process one way or the other.

That idea is nearly dead now and the assumption is that you must file records when you want to change your name for any reason. Although I believe in many cases laws governing women's name changes have been altered, e.g., it is no longer 100% assumed when you a file a marriage license that you will take your husband's name.

Sorry to go on about this. I find the issue of names and the law very interesting. Especially the assumption that the "traditional" thing is for a woman to take her husband's name. That is actually a (relatively) recent innovation in Western culture, dating from the mid-to-late 18th c. (It began earlier in England than on the continent however.) Before that women always retained their maiden names. This is the case for the women I research in 17th-early 18th c. France.

I have learned all sorts of things from this thread!

I must say I'm blown away. I had no idea Frances Willard was greek. That is so awesome! She is so FAMOUS and someone whose life is a testament to ideas as well as ideals. Congratulations, Alpha Phi. WOW! As a former History teacher, we spent weeks studying the famous reformers and her name was right up there with the best.

I know, right? Who knew?!

And then there's the hispanic naming conventions where the children take both the father and the mother's surnames. Some women never drop those surnames as their "maiden name" and just add their husband's name with "de X" after their proper full surname.

Right. This is actually indicative of the traditional (pre-18th century) practice of name conventions, which in Spain and its colonies never fully switched over to what we might call the English model (as France & Germany & et al did) in which a woman completely drops her maiden name in general use (although may retain it as a unused middle name).

I should also mention that England's earlier adoption of this naming convention is related to its particularly restrictive coverture, which severely limited women's legal personhood to a degree unseen on the continent.

In European countries before the naming shift of the 18th century, elite women (eg titled aristocrats, maybe 5% or less of the population) would take the noble adjective of their husband as you mention. In France (and I guess Spain) this would be "de" and in Germany "von." Originally such prefixes indicated nobility and was indicative of a royal style. So for example one of the nobles I've studied quite a bit was Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf. In that case he had no "technical" last name (as indeed many European royality don't have last names to this day except for legal reasons) but the "von" indicated that he was "from" somewhere (his family's estate) and that he was a noble... Sort of like saying "duke of ......." would be today. Or you could think of George Gordon, who was Lord Byron. Byron wasn't his last name but rather the name of his house/title. A noble woman who married would consequently adopt her husband's royal name/style (eg Lady Byron). As time passed prefixes like "de" and "von" became less and less restricted to the nobility however.

Speaking of the Latin American model, I've seen a lot of professional women (mostly women in academia which is my field) who are now choosing to take their husband's name (as opposed to either keeping their name or hyphenating) but using their maiden name as a middle name for professional purposes. Using my earlier example this would be calling themselves "Jane Smith Doe" for all professional purposes but also having the flexibility outside of the professional world to be "Jane Doe". One of my friends has done this actually.

Actually, using your maiden name as a middle name has been a long-time southern convention. My name is Belle MaidenName MarriedName. Also, using family surnames for given names - my eldest son is named Jackson for my maternal grandmother's maiden name.

;)

http://hardwarelogic.com/articles/bl...oreYouKnow.jpg

I didn't know this until Jesse Jackson Jr. became JJ Sr. after his father passed, and Congressman JJ III became JJ Jr. I was so confused.

I didn't even notice this had happened at all!

I didn't know my mother had a middle name for the longest, because she used her maiden name as her middle name when ever she signed anything. LOL.

This practice seems to be making a resurgence, since I know many who have recently adopted it usually after the death of their father. And I don't mean hyphenated.

I "heart" this thread.

Thanks to everyone for contributing such interesting information.

LOL - exactly! I think I was in middle school or something when I finally found out my mom's middle name (although I don't think it's still a legal part of her name) since she goes by FirstName MaidenName LastName. Most ladies around here do this, I think. (I'm just weird ... I'm FirstName MiddleName MyLastName-HisLastName, and so is he. :) )

My dad and his brother both married women with the same first name, and with middle names that started w/ the same initial. My mom used ZsaZsa MaidenName LastName, my aunt uses ZsaZsa MiddleName LastName. Even so, people still got it confused (mainly because my last name is unusual and people just assumed there couldn't be more than one person w/ that name).

Miss Manners would always stress, though, that a person's choices always trump the "rules." In other words, you call people what they want to be called, and it is rude to do otherwise. When a person introduces himself as Lord Henry Higginbottom the Eighth, that's what you call him. If an older person insists that you call her by her first name, not "Mrs. Jones," you oblige her.

I am a HUGE Miss Manners fan.
________
Web shows

I know this is the rule, but I know few families that follow it, including my own. (My brother is an IV.) I think a lot of it has to do with the family being well known (locally) and everybody being used to who is Jr., III, IV etc. (I was taught that one never uses Sr.) It just gets too confusing when people die and then before you know it, the guy whom everyone has always known as IV is Jr.

Then, of course, you have to factor in the guys known as "Trey" or "Tripp" because they're the III. I actually know one man who goes by "IV." It's just too much to change.

Besides, the catalog companies, alumni association databses, etc., would never be able to keep up. :D

It's not legally dead, although in may be dead in practice. In NC, at least, you can still legally change your name anytime you like just by using a new name. However, don't expect DMV or the Social Security Administration to recognize your new name without a court order, marriage license, divorce decree or the like.

And then there's the old Scandinavian tradition, still used in Iceland, where your last name depends on your father's first name, and a family of four can have four different last names. Say dad's name is Eric -- his son, Leif, is Leif Ericsson (Eric's son), and his daughter, we'll call her Katrín, is Katrín Ericsdóttir (Eric's daughter). Meanwhile, Helga -- Eric's wife and the mother of Leif and Katrín -- is the daughter of a man named Jón, so her last name is Jónsdóttir. Oh, and Eric's dad's first name was Stefán, so his name is Eric Stefánsson.

So, in one family, you have Eric Stefánsson (husband) and Helga Jónsdóttir (wife) and their kids: Leif Ericsson and Katrín Ericsdóttir.

Just to get this back a little to topic, I understand that there is some trend in Iceland -- sometimes because the father is out of the picture and sometimes as a social statement -- to use the mother's name as the basis for the last name. So, say, Eric abandoned his family, the kids might choose to go by Leif Helguson and Katrín Helgusdóttir.

And this is why I didn't change my name when I got married. I already had a middle name that I liked- it is my godmother's name. I wasn't comfortable just dropping it and using my last name as my middle name. I also really like my last name, and since my Dad is a geneologist I know the history behind it and am proud of that. And my name and my husband's name don't hyphenate well. So I ended up keeping my name. (My kids have my husband's last name but the cats have my last name!). So now when telemarketers call and ask for "Mrs. Husband's name" I can honestly say there is noone there by that name!

I found this book, Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Nonviolence in America, 1915-1963 by Scott H. Bennett. Jessie was a founder of The War Resisters League and for many years it was headquartered in her home. The organization is still going strong today.

When she was younger she attended, Northfield Seminary which was a Congregationalist female boarding school. It is non-sectarian now but I have often wondered if those Congregationalist views are what partly helped to form her views. Jessie also wrote several books on socialism and was a member of the Socialist Party. She even published anti-war poetry.

I searched in the NY Times archives and there are some early articles involving her. Unfortunately, there is a fee involved to see the majority of them.

Another of our founders, Stella George Stern Perry, was heavily involved with women's and children's welfare issues. It was through her that we adopted the child labor issue.

Men with numbers - I saw a wedding announcement where the bride was the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. John H. Doe XXIV. Her grandparents were Mr. and Mrs. John H. Doe XXIII. Her brother, Mr. John H. Doe XXV, was a groomsman. I had never seen a name continuing like that.

Also, what about George Forman and his five sons who all share his name? Let's say that George Forman III is the first to have a son. Would he be George Forman VII? Let's say that George Forman II has a son next. Would that son be George Forman VIII?

Thanks. :)

*****

My siblings and I were taught my parents' entire names when we were very little. Part of that has to do with having seen their IDs and photos from youth and college days so we knew all of their names. So, when I wasn't calling her "mom" all the time, I was playfully calling my mom by her first, middle, maiden and last names all of my life.

Good one.

As I understand it, the numbering system may be used in two ways. First for a direct line where all the men are directly descended from the original name. Second, the numbers may be used within an extend family to show the order of the name given within the extend family.

Generally, numbers are "assigned" by generations. Thus the 1st/Senior would be the first generation. 2nd/Junior/II would be the next generation. 3rd/III the third generation. And so on. This works well when the names are given to a direct lineage - i.e. Grandfather, Father, and Son.

Now as I mentioned before, "Junior" - who is the 2nd generation son - may not have any sons or any children for that matter. However, his brother may have a son and decide to name his son "3rd" in honor of both the son's uncle (2nd generation) and the son's Grandfather (1st generation). Now for sake of discussion, lets say that "Junior" has a son. Since his brother has already named his son the 3rd. "Junior" has two options. He could name his son 3rd showing that he is the third generation in the direct line to have that name. Or he may elect to name his son 4th. To show that he is the 4th *person* within the whole extended family to have that name. I know of both scenarios being used.

So with respect to Mr. Forman, since his sons are all within the same generation, it appears he is using the numbers to show the number of sons in the same family with the same name. So my guess is as you noted above. If Mr. George Forman III has the first son, he would be named George Forman VII. And Mr. George Forman II's son would be George Forman VIII.

i knew a III in HS (well call him Jim Doe) and he was vehemently against naming his future son Jim Doe IV. now lets say, for example, that John Doe (the son that got skipped over), years down the line wants to pick up tradition again and has a son, does that son get to be Jim Doe IV or do they start over, having him be John Doe Jr.?

My boss is a III. His oldest son is a IV only because they were surprised he was a boy when he was born (they had paid for an u/s to find out the sex and were told it was a girl) and they didn't have any boy names picked out.

I just have to say that i'm not sure about all "hispanics" but using "de" is not very common in Mexican tradition. So many women just add the husband's last name to the end w/o the "de." In fact, I haven't heard of using "de" until you mentioned it.

And for children (if i can remember correctly) its Firstname Middlename father'slastname mother'smaidenname.

As I understand it, John Doe (the son that was skipped) would be able to pick up the tradition and name his son Jim Doe IV. The reason is that John Doe's son is the forth *Jim* Doe in the family.

And if John Doe decided to name his son John Doe after himself, then his son would be a junior/2nd. And for what it is worth, generally speaking "Junior" is used for a son within the same direct lineage, while 2nd/II is used when a generation is either skipped or it is not a direct lineage.

Here are a few possible scenarios that I am personally acquainted with either via my family and/or friends.

Scenario One - direct lineage
Generation 1: John Doe (farther)
Generation 2: John Doe, Junior (son of John Doe) ------ Frank Doe (brother of John Doe, Junior and son of John Doe)
Generation 3: John Doe, III (son of John Doe, Junior)
Generation 4: John Doe, IV (son of John Doe III)

Scenario Two - Son has no male offspring - indirect lineage
Generation 1: John Doe (farther)
Generation 2: John Doe, Junior (son of John Doe) [no sons] ------ Frank Doe (brother of John Doe, Junior and son of John Doe)
Generation 3: John Doe, III (son of Frank Doe)
Generation 4: John Doe, IV (son of John Doe, III)

Scenario Three - Name skips a generation, but also direct lineage (with a twist)
Generation 1: John Doe (farther)
Generation 2: Frank Doe (son of John Doe) [name skipped]
Generation 3: John Doe, II (son of Frank Doe) *and* Frank Doe, Junior (brother of John Doe II, son of Frank Doe)
Generation 4: John Doe, III (son of John Doe II and cousin of Frank Doe, III) *and* Frank Doe, III (son of Frank Doe, Junior and cousin of John Doe, III)

In Chile, many women are starting to use the "de" with their husband's last name. For instance, if a woman's name is Maria Mercedes Santiago Serena (she would sign her name Maria Mercedes Santiago S.), she might style herself Maria Mercedes Santiago de Balboa.

Oh, I'd never be one of those rude, overbearing people who "corrects" someone as to his/her own name - it would just irritate me. But that's the cross I bear with many seemingly forgotten elements of etiquette. :)

Thanks-
I did not do the research over before I posted & thought that it might have been Iowa State - I checked with Wikipedia later & knew that it was wrong- but at least I got the state right. It also seems that Carrie Chapman Catt was an associate of Susan B. Anthony. :)