Generational Suffixes- how far?

[Jennifer]

I got this question in my column and don't know the answer. Is there a rule? How far has any family gone other than Kings and Popes?

No one in the family agrees on how many infants can bear the same name. Can you go past John Doe III to the IV, V , etc? I realize that at some point the names would look like Super Bowls, but I say it can be done. I am a majority of one.

Thank you,
George L

[JustCallMeJ]

I would think, in theory, that you could go on as long as you wanted, even though John Thomas Doe XXIV might seem a little ridiculous. I know one family with a John Thomas Doe V and that's the farthest I've seen it go.

[RedJacks]

I met a John XVI once. :shrug:

[ckevans]

John XVI is rather amazing, because the custom of using Roman numerals after given names for non-royal families only goes back to the middle of the 18th century at the earlies, if I remember correctly. It would be really unusual to have 16 generations in 250 years.

When I was able to look at actual birth certificates in Washtenaw County, Michigan, in the 1980s, the highest I saw was a Joseph VII.

Etiquette books published in the early to mid 20th century used to tell people that the numerals were not for life but only designated among living men with the same name. So they told you that when Sr. died, Jr. was supposed to become Sr., III was supposed to become Jr., and IV was supposed to become III. But that system in reality would have been more confusing that men keeping their original designation, so very few families ever paid attention to that supposed rule of etiquette. :)

[PrincessL23]

I have a neighbor who is David V, and fully intends on naming his son David VI.

[nomdeplume]

A friend's family includes James Sr., James Jr., James III and James IV. As long as the names are really the same -- that is, identical fn, mn and ln -- I don't see why the numbers can't continue until one of them decides to break the tradition. But if any part of the name is different, then that person doesn't qualify as part of the numbered string.

[ClaudiaD]

I think V is the highest I've actually seen on a person. I suppose it doesn't often get farther than that before the numbered person doesn't have a son, has a wife who puts her foot down, or decides himself that the whole thing is silly. One of my nephews is Lawrence IV. I'm curious to see if he will carry on the tradition someday.

[snow]

Yeah I only know a VI (Frank, which seems kind of odd for one with 6 generations... John, I could see), but he has two girls, so problem solved, unless his daughters get all itchy to carry it on with their kids. Hm!

[jess]

My grandfather was David James, and now my (2nd?) cousin is David James IV. Not sure how long that will continue.

[PearlsFurMama]

If royal families can do it-- so can we! Ever heard of Loius the XVI?

[cinerdy]

A friend from HS has a George X. Yup, that's 10. Sounds like a radical, doesn't he?

[Zabbie]

My cousin is the 6th John Gibson in our family, but we don't use that numbering tradition in the UK!

[alleigh76]

I know lots of 'the thirds,' some with pretty interesting names (Edward Bruce, for example)--most of them aren't John or James or anything like that. The highest I know is IV. I understand why you would want your kid named after you, but having ten people in a family with the same name seems a bit confusing to me. I would have enough trouble with two. :)