waldo Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Hey, does this mean we can refer to Queen Elizabeth II as Elizabeth Jr. ? I personally am at peace with that; however, best you check with the Sr. and Jr. mods. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Hey, does this mean we can refer to Queen Elizabeth II as Elizabeth Jr. ?I can do better: Chuck III. (Except, British monarchs, like Popes, get to choose their own name when they ascend to the throne. So, we don't know for certain that Charles will be a Charles when his mother dies.) I suspect that he won't be. Charles is not a fortunate British royal name. Edited February 5, 2016 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Well, the queen's birth name was Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, so her generational suffix would be just as questionable. Maybe popes and monarchs get their own special deal. President George W. Bush, also a head-of-state, never referred to himself as a "Jr." or "II". Ergo, it is just as appropriate to refer to Her Majesty as Elizabeth Jr. or maybe Mountbatten-Windsor Jr. Prince Charles may go with Chucky III, but my guess is he will modernize the throne and choose Tupac Shakur II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Well, the queen's birth name was Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, so her generational suffix would be just as questionable. Maybe popes and monarchs get their own special deal. President George W. Bush, also a head-of-state, never referred to himself as a "Jr." or "II". Ergo, it is just as appropriate to refer to Her Majesty as Elizabeth Jr. or maybe Mountbatten-Windsor Jr. Prince Charles may go with Chucky III, but my guess is he will modernize the throne and choose Tupac Shakur II. Fine form. I stand in awe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Speaking of such things: Pope George Ringo? Perhaps Jeremy Irons could portray... Edited February 5, 2016 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Hey, does this mean we can refer to Queen Elizabeth II as Elizabeth Jr. ? The answer is: no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 Mrs Windsor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Mrs Windsor?No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Well, the queen's birth name was Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, so her generational suffix would be just as questionable.Edward VII at birth was Albert Edward. George VI was Albert Frederick. Ergo, it is just as appropriate to refer to Her Majesty as Elizabeth Jr. or maybe Mountbatten-Windsor Jr.b-c, you missed a key change in the family name. Her family name was once Hanover - but this was changed to Windsor about 100 years ago. Noblesse oblige. (BTW, in a very similar way, what happened to Windows 9?) Edited February 7, 2016 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Well, the queen's birth name was Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, so her generational suffix would be just as questionable. Maybe popes and monarchs get their own special deal. President George W. Bush, also a head-of-state, never referred to himself as a "Jr." or "II". Ergo, No. There is no "ergo" here. You are trying to apply some illusion of logic where none exists. This is an exception to a rule. This is not a derivative of logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 No. There is no "ergo" here. You are trying to apply some illusion of logic where none exists. This is an exception to a rule. This is not a derivative of logic. Nope....the logic has been applied and discussion has ensued. Nothing special about Elizabeth when it comes to generational suffixes. I even checked the Oracle class library. This is a box of the mods own making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 No. There is no "ergo" here. You are trying to apply some illusion of logic where none exists. This is an exception to a rule. This is not a derivative of logic. what is the basis for the exception? You've been asked previously; asking again... . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 what is the basis for the exception?We deem Aug91's OP to be sufficient justification for this exception to the Queen's English here at MLW. This is a box of the mods own making.Correct. That is exactly what I am trying to get across. Why is this such a big deal?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Correct. That is exactly what I am trying to get across. Why is this such a big deal?? It's not a big deal...just another squeaky toy for us to play with in the cage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 We deem Aug91's OP to be sufficient justification for this exception to the Queen's English here at MLW. so... you choose to ignore the fact there is no basis for the exception based on either proper generational suffix usage or on how the respective Trudeau's self-identified and by what respective names they were recognized by? And your basis for the exception is simply the MLW member Aug91's OP? What within that OP usurps the 2 aforementioned critical criteria points for typical/usual/non-exception based use of generational suffixes? what in that OP you refer to has you so, as you described, "at peace with your exception decision"? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Why is this such a big deal?? the big deal concerns have been registered by at least 10 MLW members repeatedly and in multiple variations across 3 separate threads. Why is this such a big deal for you to have extended an exception in the face of such critical focused... big deal concerns? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) what is the basis for the exception? You've been asked previously; asking again... . Waldo, I reckon that you have issues - but you may have a point. Let's take this to another thread. I'm Canadian, and always willing to discuss, eh. Edited February 7, 2016 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Why is this such a big deal for you to have extended an exception in the face of such critical focused... big deal concerns? It is not a big deal for me. Charles Anthony Jr is still at the top of my baby names list. And your basis for the exception is simply the MLW member Aug91's OP? It certainly is the best basis but it is not the only basis. I can think of others. All I am saying is that Aug91's OP is sufficient justification for this exception. In other words, Aug91's OP whacks the ball out of the park. I aint sprinting around the diamond for your entertainment. What within that OP usurps the 2 aforementioned critical criteria points for typical/usual/non-exception based use of generational suffixes? what in that OP you refer to has you so, as you described, "at peace with your exception decision"? I aint answering any of those questions because my thoughts are unfit for print. Please respect that and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Waldo, I reckon that you have issues - but you may have a point. Let's take this to another thread. I'm Canadian, and always willing to discuss, eh. a grand gesture! But... a 4th thread? This thread (your initiated thread), is the 3rd recent thread now to include posts on this topic. What could be, what is, more appropriate than the very thread you initiated on the topic - this thread? What was the point of your/this thread... if not to discuss here, eh as an aside, there are many other MLW members raising their concerns in regards this topic and the declared "exception"... not just lil' ole me . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) a grand gesture! But... a 4th thread? This thread (your initiated thread), is the 3rd recent thread now to include posts on this topic. Waldo, I could start another thread with this idea: divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. That's harder to remember than "Jnr" and "Snr". ==== Henri Bourrassa is the grandson of Louis-Joseph Papineau. Mackenzie King is the grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie. Trudeau Jnr is the son of Trudeau Snr. Edited February 15, 2016 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 You keep saying that, but that's not the way the Jr. designation works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Ok, let's try this again given the misnaming of a thread where I became honestly confused as to who was being referred to since Donald Trump Jr. is actually the son of Donald Trump. Here is the cartoon version: http://schmidtgen.com/wordpress/2013/10/20/how-to-use-jr-sr-ii-iii-etc-with-cartoons/ Note: if the name is not exactly the same then we should not be using the term "Junior." So to call, for example, Donald Trump, as in the guy who has said he will pay people's legal bills if they beat up protestors, Donald Trump Jnr is incorrect since his father's name was Fred. Since "The Donald" (for lack of a better descriptor) has a son named junior one would expect him ("The Donald") to be Donald Trump Senior since they have the same names and since both are alive and well. I will now point out that Pierre Trudeau was actually named Joseph Phillipe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau. Since none of his children are named all of these names and since he is dead it is inappropriate to call him Senior and inappropriate to claim any of his children are Junior. This also means that the Bush's, Walker and his father Herbert Walker, should not be referred to as Junior and Senior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 I have come to believe that people are only using "Trudeau Jr" to get a rise out of other people. And I have come to believe that those people only make a fuss about it because they want to complain about the first people. It all seems tremendously juvenile. Please, August, find some better way of getting the forum all agitated. Perhaps some new Three Paragraphs movie reviews? Here is the cartoon version: http://schmidtgen.com/wordpress/2013/10/20/how-to-use-jr-sr-ii-iii-etc-with-cartoons/ Note: if the name is not exactly the same then we should not be using the term "Junior." This was actually quite interesting. Since Pierre Trudeau is also dead, that's a second reason why "Jr" is inaccurate, as you stop being "Jr" when "Sr" passes away. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 I have come to believe that people are only using "Trudeau Jr" to get a rise out of other people.Yet, I referred to Bush Jnr on this forum without any problem, without any "rise", as you describe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) Yet, I referred to Bush Jnr on this forum without any problem, without any "rise", as you describe it.I have referred to him too as Jr. but out of genuine ignorance: they are both George Bush so it is easy to forget that they do not share identical middle names. One would hope that upon becoming enlightened then one would correct his/her usage on a going forward basis which is what I intend to do. You know the expression: "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir?" Edited March 17, 2016 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.