How to write full names containing: Second, Third (II, III) (2025)

I'm trying to figure out the correct way to write out a person's full name in this circumstance:

Example:
John Smith the Second
John Smith the Third

Are these correct? Is Second and Third capitalized?

I don't want to write them:
John Smith II
John Smith III

I want to know the right way to write them out in full.

I'd also appreciate any links to sites that discuss this.

Thanks!

AngelEyes

AngelEyes said:

Example:
John Smith the Second
John Smith the Third

Click to expand...

I personally would capitalize them like that, Eyes. I've no idea if there's an actual Rule about it, though. (We don't really go in for those kinds of names in the UK)

Sounds to me like a style issue, i.e. something that's specified arbitrarily by your choice of style guide or one that is imposed upon you.

Wikipedia has an interesting discussion of name suffixes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix_%28name%29

(signed) sdgraham I

sdgraham said:

Wikipedia has an interesting discussion of name suffixes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix_(name)

Click to expand...

Erm ... where, SDG?

Ah: try this, folks.

Hi.
I really do not want to upset our American foreros but sometimes things get so that one can only be told (without taking offense) by a well meaning friend. Only Monarchs and Popes have Regnal numbers and it causes no end of amusement (sorry) when US citizens style themselves thus. But then do we Anglos not have a multitude of quaint customs ourselves?

We have to laugh at and celebrate/understand our different cultures rather than retreat into tribalism.

Thanks for these helpful answers.

I agree it's not common to see these written out, but in my particular case, I want to write it out, rather than using the Roman numeral III.

From what I can find using that link and others I've since found, it's proper when writing it out to do it this way:

John Smith the 3rd.

As for John Smith II: that would be a child whose named after a grandfather, for instance. This child would not be a Junior unless he shares his father's name. If he shares both his father's and grandfather's name, then he would become the 3rd.

AngelEyes

AngelEyes said:

Thanks for these helpful answers.
As for John Smith II: that would be a child whose named after a grandfather, for instance. This child would not be a Junior unless he shares his father's name. If he shares both his father's and grandfather's name, then he would become the 3rd.

Click to expand...

Good to know. Here I don't think you'd bother differentiating a grandfather and grandchild's names at all, they would both just be 'John Smith' - I suppose the idea is that you're unlikely to confuse the two.

Wayland said:

Hi.
I really do not want to upset our American foreros but sometimes things get so that one can only be told (without taking offense) by a well meaning friend. Only Monarchs and Popes have Regnal numbers and it causes no end of amusement (sorry) when US citizens style themselves thus. But then do we Anglos not have a multitude of quaint customs ourselves?

Click to expand...

How do Anglos differentiate then when a grandfather, father, and son all have the same name?

languageGuy said:

How do Anglos differentiate then when a grandfather, father, and son all have the same name?

Click to expand...

I am John, The Duke of Bumphshire, my son is John the Marquis of
Otherplace, and my grandson is John the Right Honourable.( And a right waste of space he is too).

languageGuy said:

How do Anglos differentiate then when a grandfather, father, and son all have the same name?

Click to expand...

I simply don't know anyone in this situation, other than one guy who comes into the place where we work who is a III but who has a Spanish-sounding name. And yeah, we kinda call him 'the third' in a bit of a mocking way behind his back... I do know a father and son (my uncle and cousin, respectively) with the same name, but they don't even call themselves jr. and snr. as a matter of course. Within our family we call them 'Big John' and 'Little John' but that's hardly standard practice lol.

The only American name I'm aware of that climbed as high as the foutrh limb of the ordinal family tree is country/western singer George Hamilton IV.

Wikipedia doesn't say whether the name is legitimate or contrived for stage purposes.

Personally, I wouldn't (and didn't) tag any of my sons to be a "junior."

Gwan said:

we call them 'Big John' and 'Little John' but that's hardly standard practice lol.

Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, Gwan. I'm fairly certain that when my mother and her brother, who were both named after their parents*, were growing up they were known as Little V____ and Little J____. (Mind you, I'm not sure what happened when my uncle reached the 6'2" mark while his dad stayed put at 5'6" or so)

*It was an accident, apparently: they just couldn't agree on any other names.

ewie said:

Oh I don't know, Gwan. I'm fairly certain that when my mother and her brother, who were both named after their parents*, were growing up they were known as Little V____ and Little J____. (Mind you, I'm not sure what happened when my uncle reached the 6'2" mark while his dad stayed put at 5'6" or so)

*It was an accident, apparently: they just couldn't agree on any other names.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's a Lancashire thing Ewie
And yes, my "Little John" is now a married police officer with 2 kids, doesn't quite work any more...