If John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy were alive and, in 2003, adopted a Black child and changed his name to ‘John Kennedy,’ would he then be ‘John Kennedy the Third’? Or No since the kid is not biologically theirs?
If John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy were alive and, in 2003, adopted a Black child and changed his name to ‘John Kennedy,’ would he then be ‘John Kennedy the Third’? Or No since the kid is not biologically theirs?
Seeing as people can change their own name to whatever they want, including if there is no preceding generation with that name, then no, there’s no particular issue with suffixes on names.
I’d like to point out that in the English-speaking world, the English (and now British) Monarchy increments the generation number without regard for the immediately preceding generation. As in, Elizabeth II was crowned 300+ years after Elizabeth I. So it is well accepted that ordering doesn’t necessarily matter and there is no hard rule against it.
It’s different between monarchs and regular people. Kings and queens are known by their first name. Lizzy was the second Elizabeth on the throne, thus Elizabeth II. For private individuals, the distinction is because of the assumption the predecessor is alive while Junior and The Third are around and are used to avoid confusion.
I can concede this.
Whereas this cannot possibly make sense, because knowing which person is which would still be relevant after they’re all dead. See Pliny The Elder versus Pliny The Younger, Alexander Dumas (father vs son), and MLK (senior and junior).
At the time of naming, Senior is usually still alive and the same is often true for the grandchild. While it is indeed true that distinguishing between two people is useful after death, I’d say it’s more happy accident than not since people tend to not think that far into the future. Not saying it doesn’t happen at all, only that it wouldn’t be the primary reasoning behind the convention.