Quote:
Originally Posted by TSteven
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.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
