Discussion Groups / English Usage / March 2010

Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa.   10 years
Indianapolis   7 years
Chicago          6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore       26 years

You are Methusulah and I claim my 5 shekels

[...]

Wikipedia tells us possibly more than many want to know:

There is no hard-and-fast rule over what happens to suffixes when the
most senior of the name dies: whether the men retain their titles, or  
they all "move up" one.  Neither tradition nor etiquette provides a
definitive answer (etiquette expert Judith Martin, for example, believes
they should all move up, but most agree that this is up to the
individual families).  Upon the death of John Smith Sr., his son, John
Smith, Jr. may decide to style himself John Smith Sr. (causing confusion
if his widowed mother and his wife both use the formal style Mrs. John
Smith, Sr., and necessitating that his son and grandson change their
titles as well) or he may remain John Smith, Jr. for the rest of his
lifetime.  One effect of moving up one is that it eliminates the
extension of Roman numerals over the generations: i.e., a John Smith
III, IV, and V.  A disadvantage is that it may cause confusion with
respect to birth certificates, credit cards, and the like.  In practice
it is quite uncommon for families to go beyond "III" in naming children,
although there are notable exceptions; the legal name of Tom Cruise, for
instance, is actually Thomas Cruise Mapother IV, and the oldest sons of
U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (legal name John Davison Rockefeller IV)
and former Major League Baseball pitcher Orel Hershiser both have "IV"
as their suffix.  Former boxer George Foreman named his five sons after
himself: George Edward Foreman II through VI.

In cases where a child is given the same name as a relative who is not
the child's mother or father, it is considered correct to give the child
a numerical suffix.  For example, a child named John William Scott,
after his uncle John William Scott, would properly be considered John
William Scott II, as opposed to "Junior." Junior is not used because, in
this example, John William Scott is not the child of John William Scott,
senior.  If John William Scott II were to have a son, he could then be
named John William Scott III or John William Scott, Jr., depending upon
the family.  While it is not technically the social norm to use "II" in
place of "junior" for children born directly to a same named parent,
there is no social rule against the usage of "II" instead of "junior"
for a same named child.  Often, II is used by families who want to avoid
having their children referred to as "junior" as a nickname.

I agree with the Wikipedian who remarked on the "Discussion" page that
it's a hopeless mess.

Reading from news:alt.english.usage,
mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> posted:

Yeah, those I understand.  There are many "Michael Jacksons" in the world,
and some of them are even whiter than the famous one.

Damaeus