[OT] Sr., Jr., III, IV ...

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

This is not really a question about British genealogy, as in Britain
suffixes like Jr. are far less common than in the USA. However, someone
here may know. There was a discussion recently in another group
(alt.usage.english) about how far the III, IV ... can go in practice. I
read somewhere that there was someone in an Austrian or German
aristocratic family whose suffix was XV. Any pointers to who that is?
I'm not thinking of Kings, Popes etc., for whom they can go as high as
XXIII, but of families in which the suffixes are actually treated as
part of the full name.

Actually it would quite convenient if they _were_ used more in British
families. My paternal great-great-greatgrandfather was Ambrose Bowden;
his father was Ambrose Bowden, whose father was Ambrose Bowden, whose
father was Ambrose Bowden. One can of course add one's own suffixes
when compiling family records, but I'm thinking of cases where the
people concerned use(d) them as part of their names.

[john]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
This is not really a question about British genealogy, as in Britain
suffixes like Jr. are far less common than in the USA. However,
someone here may know. There was a discussion recently in another
group (alt.usage.english) about how far the III, IV ... can go in
practice. I read somewhere that there was someone in an Austrian or
German aristocratic family whose suffix was XV. Any pointers to who
that is? I'm not thinking of Kings, Popes etc., for whom they can go
as high as XXIII, but of families in which the suffixes are actually
treated as part of the full name.
Actually it would quite convenient if they _were_ used more in
British families. My paternal great-great-greatgrandfather was
Ambrose Bowden; his father was Ambrose Bowden, whose father was
Ambrose Bowden, whose father was Ambrose Bowden. One can of course
add one's own suffixes when compiling family records, but I'm
thinking of cases where the people concerned use(d) them as part of
their names.

There is an interesting discussion
https://ask.metafilter.com/254969/The-same-as-my-father-before-me-and-his-father-before-him-and
(or https://tinyurl.com/y3vyfb4f)
which includes Prince Heinrich LXVII is the son of Prince Heinrich LXII
and the father of Prince Heinrich XIV. "The House of Reuss practises an
unusual system of naming and numbering the male members of the family..."

Heinrich XXXIX Prinz Reuss zu Köstritz
http://www.thepeerage.com/p11135.htm#i111341

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by john

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
This is not really a question about British genealogy, as in Britain
suffixes like Jr. are far less common than in the USA. However,
someone here may know. There was a discussion recently in another
group (alt.usage.english) about how far the III, IV ... can go in
practice. I read somewhere that there was someone in an Austrian or
German aristocratic family whose suffix was XV. Any pointers to who
that is? I'm not thinking of Kings, Popes etc., for whom they can go
as high as XXIII, but of families in which the suffixes are actually
treated as part of the full name.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Actually it would quite convenient if they _were_ used more in

British families. My paternal great-great-greatgrandfather was
Ambrose Bowden; his father was Ambrose Bowden, whose father was
Ambrose Bowden, whose father was Ambrose Bowden. One can of course
add one's own suffixes when compiling family records, but I'm
thinking of cases where the people concerned use(d) them as part of
their names.

There is an interesting discussion
https://ask.metafilter.com/254969/The-same-as-my-father-before-me-and-his-father-before-him-and
(or https://tinyurl.com/y3vyfb4f)
which includes Prince Heinrich LXVII is the son of Prince Heinrich LXII
and the father of Prince Heinrich XIV. "The House of Reuss practises an
unusual system of naming and numbering the male members of the
family..."
Heinrich XXXIX Prinz Reuss zu Köstritz
http://www.thepeerage.com/p11135.htm#i111341

Thanks. That's exactly the example I read about some months ago and
couldn't find again.

[cecilia]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 13:00:54 +0200, john

Post by john
There is an interesting discussion
https://ask.metafilter.com/254969/The-same-as-my-father-before-me-and-his-father-before-him-and
(or https://tinyurl.com/y3vyfb4f)
which includes Prince Heinrich LXVII is the son of Prince Heinrich LXII
and the father of Prince Heinrich XIV. "The House of Reuss practises an
unusual system of naming and numbering the male members of the family..."

That page links to an explanatory page.

Adding the appropriate section point:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Principality_of_Reuss-Gera#/The_princely_house

[Ian Goddard]

in Britain suffixes like Jr. are far less common than in the USA

It depends where you're looking. I've come across them, especially in
manorial records. What's not necessarily clear is whether you're
looking at a parental relationship, a wider family relationship such as
cousins, two people of more remote, if any, kinship who just happen to
have the same name or, in really pathological situations, siblings. I
started off assuming the first but now I'm more wary.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ian Goddard

in Britain suffixes like Jr. are far less common than in the USA

It depends where you're looking. I've come across them, especially in
manorial records. What's not necessarily clear is whether you're
looking at a parental relationship, a wider family relationship such as
cousins, two people of more remote, if any, kinship who just happen to
have the same name or, in really pathological situations, siblings. I
started off assuming the first but now I'm more wary.

Yes, I've occasionally found it, but often in contexts where, as you
say, it's just that two people in the area have the same name (though of
course that often _is_ father and son); also, it's rarely clear whether
the person adding the suffix is even a member of the family, or just
someone adding it - possibly using it as the Latin comparative ("[the]
older" or "[the] younger") only.

Though less common than it once was, I get the impression that the USA
custom _is_ normally family-applied - even to the extent that the son is
sometimes referred to (and addressed) as Junior rather than his actual
name. (Seems to be only sons - I've not come across it for daughters,
though I daresay it occurs.) I've not encountered it, except in families
with US connections, in Britain - though I guess it probably does occur.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Ian Goddard

in Britain suffixes like Jr. are far less common than in the USA

It depends where you're looking. I've come across them, especially in
manorial records. What's not necessarily clear is whether you're
looking at a parental relationship, a wider family relationship such as
cousins, two people of more remote, if any, kinship who just happen to
have the same name or, in really pathological situations, siblings. I
started off assuming the first but now I'm more wary.

Yes, I've occasionally found it, but often in contexts where, as you
say, it's just that two people in the area have the same name (though
of course that often _is_ father and son); also, it's rarely clear
whether the person adding the suffix is even a member of the family, or
just someone adding it - possibly using it as the Latin comparative
("[the] older" or "[the] younger") only.
Though less common than it once was, I get the impression that the USA
custom _is_ normally family-applied - even to the extent that the son
is sometimes referred to (and addressed) as Junior rather than his
actual name. (Seems to be only sons - I've not come across it for
daughters, though I daresay it occurs.) I've not encountered it, except
in families with US connections, in Britain - though I guess it
probably does occur.

One well known example in the UK (well known if you know some organic
chemistry, anyway) is that of William Henry Perkin senior and William
Henry Perkin junior -- father and son, both very distinguished. I think
the usual abbreviations are sen. and jun., not Sr. and Jr., but now
that we're so much influenced by what the Americans do that's probably
changing (or changed).

[MB]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
One well known example in the UK (well known if you know some organic
chemistry, anyway) is that of William Henry Perkin senior and William
Henry Perkin junior -- father and son, both very distinguished. I think
the usual abbreviations are sen. and jun., not Sr. and Jr., but now that
we're so much influenced by what the Americans do that's probably
changing (or changed).

I know there are examples in the UK but it tends to be amongst the
"upper classes". It is far more common in the US and more "ordinary"
people.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by MB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
One well known example in the UK (well known if you know some organic
chemistry, anyway) is that of William Henry Perkin senior and William
Henry Perkin junior -- father and son, both very distinguished. I
think the usual abbreviations are sen. and jun., not Sr. and Jr., but
now that we're so much influenced by what the Americans do that's
probably changing (or changed).

I know there are examples in the UK but it tends to be amongst the
"upper classes". It is far more common in the US and more "ordinary"
people.

Then there was the version used in (especially boarding) schools, major
and minor. I think this was used where two boys (don't know about
girls!) had the same surname, regardless of whether they were related or
not. (I don't know what happened when there were three: I have a vague
thought that they might have used minimus, but that might be my
imagination.) At the one I was at (boarding, but certainly not a posh
one! Popular with service families) - by the time I was there (1970s) at
least, I don't know if they'd used major/minor earlier - they just used
numbers, i. e. Jones I and Jones II (pronounced one and two, not the
first and second). I can't remember for sure if they even used Roman
numerals; I think by the time I left, they weren't, but it's a _long_
time ago ... (-:

[John Armstrong]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 03:01:13 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Then there was the version used in (especially boarding) schools, major
and minor. I think this was used where two boys (don't know about
girls!) had the same surname, regardless of whether they were related or
not. (I don't know what happened when there were three: I have a vague
thought that they might have used minimus, but that might be my
imagination.)

It happened once while I was at a Scottish boarding school in the 60s.
Major, minor, and the youngest was "terts", short for "tertius", Latin
for "third".

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by John Armstrong
It happened once while I was at a Scottish boarding school in the 60s.
Major, minor, and the youngest was "terts", short for "tertius", Latin
for "third".

An uncle-by-marriage of my mother's had a brother whose forenames were
John Middleton Tertius and he was known generally as Tertius. Their
father's forenames were John Middleton as I presume their grandfather's
were also.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by John Armstrong
It happened once while I was at a Scottish boarding school in the 60s.
Major, minor, and the youngest was "terts", short for "tertius", Latin
for "third".

Odd, as maior and minor don't mean first and second, but bigger and
smaller (which usually mapped OK, as the older boy usually _was_
bigger), and why I had a vague feeling minimus (smallest) might have
been used when there was a third.

Post by Jenny M Benson
An uncle-by-marriage of my mother's had a brother whose forenames were
John Middleton Tertius and he was known generally as Tertius. Their
father's forenames were John Middleton as I presume their grandfather's
were also.

Was he the third after a father and grandfather, or the third to the
same parents? (I have one ancestor* called Thirzen, who was the
thirteenth [surviving - fourteenth altogether I think] child, and I like
to think the parents were just too tired to think of another name for
her.
*not direct ascendant, a sibling of one [so a child of one]; is that
still an ancestor?)

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 16:24:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by John Armstrong
It happened once while I was at a Scottish boarding school in the 60s.
Major, minor, and the youngest was "terts", short for "tertius", Latin
for "third".

Odd, as maior and minor don't mean first and second, but bigger and
smaller (which usually mapped OK, as the older boy usually _was_
bigger), and why I had a vague feeling minimus (smallest) might have
been used when there was a third.

Post by Jenny M Benson
An uncle-by-marriage of my mother's had a brother whose forenames were
John Middleton Tertius and he was known generally as Tertius. Their
father's forenames were John Middleton as I presume their grandfather's
were also.

Was he the third after a father and grandfather, or the third to the
same parents? (I have one ancestor* called Thirzen, who was the
thirteenth [surviving - fourteenth altogether I think] child, and I like
to think the parents were just too tired to think of another name for
her.
*not direct ascendant, a sibling of one [so a child of one]; is that
still an ancestor?)

I have my great-uncle's father in law, Septimus Ryott. His elder
siblings all had "normal" names so it looks like they had run out of
choices by the time he arrived. He had a younger sister called Cenete.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Charles Ellson
I have my great-uncle's father in law, Septimus Ryott. His elder
siblings all had "normal" names so it looks like they had run out of
choices by the time he arrived. He had a younger sister called Cenete.

The classic Romans often ran out of original choices after two children,
so Tertius and Tertia were as common as infanticide.

Moreover then and there, an adopted child usually had a higher status than a
natural one.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by John Armstrong
It happened once while I was at a Scottish boarding school in the 60s.
Major, minor, and the youngest was "terts", short for "tertius", Latin
for "third".

Odd, as maior and minor don't mean first and second, but bigger and
smaller (which usually mapped OK, as the older boy usually _was_
bigger), and why I had a vague feeling minimus (smallest) might have
been used when there was a third.

Post by Jenny M Benson
An uncle-by-marriage of my mother's had a brother whose forenames were
John Middleton Tertius and he was known generally as Tertius. Their
father's forenames were John Middleton as I presume their grandfather's
were also.

Was he the third after a father and grandfather, or the third to the
same parents? (I have one ancestor* called Thirzen, who was the
thirteenth [surviving - fourteenth altogether I think] child, and I
like to think the parents were just too tired to think of another name
for her.
*not direct ascendant, a sibling of one [so a child of one]; is that
still an ancestor?)

A pair of my great[5] grandparents had 17 children, of whom the
youngest son was called Henry Septimus and the youngest daughter was
called Louise Decima. I don't know how they knew that there wouldn't be
any more.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:09:17 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by John Armstrong
It happened once while I was at a Scottish boarding school in the 60s.
Major, minor, and the youngest was "terts", short for "tertius", Latin
for "third".

Odd, as maior and minor don't mean first and second, but bigger and
smaller (which usually mapped OK, as the older boy usually _was_
bigger), and why I had a vague feeling minimus (smallest) might have
been used when there was a third.

Post by Jenny M Benson
An uncle-by-marriage of my mother's had a brother whose forenames were
John Middleton Tertius and he was known generally as Tertius. Their
father's forenames were John Middleton as I presume their grandfather's
were also.

Was he the third after a father and grandfather, or the third to the
same parents? (I have one ancestor* called Thirzen, who was the
thirteenth [surviving - fourteenth altogether I think] child, and I
like to think the parents were just too tired to think of another name
for her.
*not direct ascendant, a sibling of one [so a child of one]; is that
still an ancestor?)

A pair of my great[5] grandparents had 17 children, of whom the
youngest son was called Henry Septimus and the youngest daughter was
called Louise Decima. I don't know how they knew that there wouldn't be
any more.

If that was the 7th son and the 10th daughter then the numbers would
still match. I think I've seen one family in a census so far where
nearly all the children were numerically named; otherwise it seems to
be just the odd one or only the later children.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 16:09:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
[]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A pair of my great[5] grandparents had 17 children, of whom the
youngest son was called Henry Septimus and the youngest daughter was
called Louise Decima. I don't know how they knew that there wouldn't be
any more.

Why would those names (I presume seventh son and tenth daughter, as that
makes 17) imply they knew there'd be no more?

[cecilia]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 14:49:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Ian Goddard

in Britain suffixes like Jr. are far less common than in the USA

It depends where you're looking. I've come across them, especially in
manorial records. What's not necessarily clear is whether you're
looking at a parental relationship, a wider family relationship such as
cousins, two people of more remote, if any, kinship who just happen to
have the same name or, in really pathological situations, siblings. I
started off assuming the first but now I'm more wary.

Yes, I've occasionally found it, but often in contexts where, as you
say, it's just that two people in the area have the same name (though of
course that often _is_ father and son); also, it's rarely clear whether
the person adding the suffix is even a member of the family, or just
someone adding it - possibly using it as the Latin comparative ("[the]
older" or "[the] younger") only.
[...]

I've transcribed a 1639 will in which the testator (an ironmonger)
describes himself as
<name> thelder
the other local person with the same name in the area being the
younger of his two sons.

[knuttle]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
This is not really a question about British genealogy, as in Britain
suffixes like Jr. are far less common than in the USA. However, someone
here may know. There was a discussion recently in another group
(alt.usage.english) about how far the III, IV ... can go in practice. I
read somewhere that there was someone in an Austrian or German
aristocratic family whose suffix was  XV. Any pointers to who that is?
I'm not thinking of Kings, Popes etc., for whom they can go as high as
XXIII, but of families in which the suffixes are actually treated as
part of the full name.
Actually it would quite convenient if they _were_ used more in British
families. My paternal great-great-greatgrandfather was Ambrose Bowden;
his father was Ambrose Bowden, whose father was Ambrose Bowden, whose
father was Ambrose Bowden. One can of course add one's own suffixes when
compiling family records, but I'm thinking of cases where the people
concerned use(d) them as part of their names.

I am in the US and currently don't see that a lot.


However, I wish it were the practice to use social security numbers
instead on name. ;-) I have one family that have five consequative
generations of John George Hirsch. I have another family with seven
siblings named Mary; Mary Catharine, Mary Theresa, etc.

[MB]

I asked a similar question somewhere else earlier this year.

I was transcribing a large war memorial at a former US airfield in the
UK. It struck me how many people there were with suffixes after their
surname when it quite rare in the UK.