Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Alternatively, "II" is used instead of junior. A notable example of this is U.S. President Barack Obama, who was named after his father, and whose birth certificate shows Barack Hussein Obama II.[1] However, the relative may also be an uncle, cousin, brother, or grandfather. The suffix "III" is used after either Jr or II and like subsequent numeric suffixes, does not need to happen in one family line. For example, if John and Bob Gruber are brothers and if Bob has a son before John, he will call his son John, II. If John now has a son, his son is John, Jr. As time passes, the III suffix goes to the first born of either John Jr or John II. This is how it is possible and correct for a Jr. to father a IV."
Or maybe they ahve the wrong John Doe IV. Maybe he's not related to I and II.
It's the right John IV. That is part of his name and confirmed.
There may have been a mistake on the birth certificate. Maybe it had III but the 2nd two II's were slanted and looked like a V.
He is related to I and II, the name is not so common.
John Doe was used to protect the family's privacy.
The birth years of 1916, 1937 and 1960 are all appropriate time frames for parenthood.
Jr. born when Sr. was 21, and John IV born when Jr. was 23. Nothing out of the ordinary on ages when born.
A family member has said that John Jr. born 1937 was actually the III.
(the Jr. was a nickname)
So, the one born in 1916 was John II (John Jr.)
My FIL was always called junior because he and others presumed that he had the same name as his father. Research has shown he was wrong and not a junior.
Also, I have several ancestors with same names, but few bothered to attach juniors, 3s or 4s. I have to keep careful attention to dates when researching them.
That it's more modern makes somewhat of a difference. In earlier times, calling someone Jr. and Sr. did not necessarily mean they were related. It meant one was older and one younger. That can be misleading in the records.
With child mortality so high, it was not unusual for children who died to have their later siblings named the same. One line in my family literally has a 'John' in each generation who grew up. Several have three children named John. When they died the next boy was John.
Harriet Beacher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin after the lost of a beloved todder, connecting her loss with the loss of a slave woman's child. Her next son was named the same as the lost child. I think the idea in that time was to honor the dead by giving their name to a child who might live.
I wonder if the numbering is added simply as a way to differenchiate when children were born for record keepers rather than them be actively used.
Today we tend to not rename another child after a deceased one because its too much grief. But then, the death rate of children was so high they had to learn how to cope since it was more than likely there would be at least one in a typical family.
Could there have been an earlier John Doe? The Srand Jr titles change as people die. They don't stay with you for life. JR could have been III but become Jr when his grandfather died.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
