The first sorority to demand equal rights

Originally Posted by alum

GEN Alum's grandmother lost her husband nearly 3 decades ago when H was a cadet. She is still addressed as Mrs. John Doe vs Mrs. Jane Doe. We were also taught that the 2nd version was only for divorced women, never for widows.

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.".

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Where did you look it up? Everyone I know from Miss Manners to Emily Post agrees - Mrs. Jane Doe is divorced. Widows do not change their names when their husbands die - unless they were Mrs. John Smith III. In that case, everyone moves up one (unless you are a reigning monarch). So she would be Mrs. John Smith II. Not many people know that - I knew a John Doe IV, who shouldn't have properly been IV, as I - III were dead.
If a woman choses to use her maiden name, she can't properly use "Mrs." with it. She would use "Ms." rather than "Miss", as "Miss" indicates unmarried.
When in doubt, use "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".

[SWTXBelle]

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).

[alum]

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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

Probably the first AGD house. Alpha Phi had the first sorority house as I recall.

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.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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).

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".

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by TSteven

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 )

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by alum

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.

Hence the famous person exception.

[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.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by alum

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.

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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by TSteven

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...

[breathesgelatin]

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.

[ThetaDancer]

I have learned all sorts of things from this thread!

[Just interested]

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.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

I have learned all sorts of things from this thread!

I know, right? Who knew?!