Quote:
Originally Posted by aopirose
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?
|
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.
Threaded Mode
