Note: The Rootsweb Mailing Lists will be shut down on April 6, 2023. (More info)
RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 2/2
    1. Re: [Busbee Busby] JR. & SR>
    2. Gaila & James Merrington
    3. Marilyn That is what I am saying....the convention today is that Sr is father and Junior is son. In the 19th century, it simply implied one was older and another was younger. It did not point to father-son, it could have been uncle - nephew or cousins. The convention changed and in todays terms we would expect to see father and son. I was just commenting that in the time period we are discussing early to late 1800's that was not the case. And you are not butting in, everyone should contribute...lol ...no one is an expert here - genealogy is not pure science, we don't have to agree on every point. Hopefully we just substantiate our points of view and keep our minds open to better evidence. Regards, Gaila ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:13 AM Subject: [Busbee Busby] JR. & SR> > I certainly don't mean to be butting in but I have seen males named after > their Father's brother and they were mentioned as Jr. that was always confusing > to me but guess there is nothing wrong with it. > > Marilyn > > > ==== BUSBY Mailing List ==== > Send an email to [email protected] with ONLY the word unsubscribe in the subject and/or body of the email. > Listowner: Gaila Merrington [email protected] > >

    01/21/2004 01:53:30
    1. Re: [Busbee Busby] JR. & SR>
    2. Gaila & James Merrington
    3. I should also say it could have been father and son too. Or grandfather and grandchild. G ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gaila & James Merrington" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:53 AM Subject: Re: [Busbee Busby] JR. & SR> > Marilyn > That is what I am saying....the convention today is that Sr is father and > Junior is son. In the 19th century, it simply implied one was older and > another was younger. It did not point to father-son, it could have been > uncle - nephew or cousins. The convention changed and in todays terms we > would expect to see father and son. I was just commenting that in the time > period we are discussing early to late 1800's that was not the case. > > And you are not butting in, everyone should contribute...lol ...no one is an > expert here - genealogy is not pure science, we don't have to agree on every > point. Hopefully we just substantiate our points of view and keep our minds > open to better evidence. > Regards, > Gaila > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:13 AM > Subject: [Busbee Busby] JR. & SR> > > > > I certainly don't mean to be butting in but I have seen males named after > > their Father's brother and they were mentioned as Jr. that was always > confusing > > to me but guess there is nothing wrong with it. > > > > Marilyn > > > > > > ==== BUSBY Mailing List ==== > > Send an email to [email protected] with ONLY the word > unsubscribe in the subject and/or body of the email. > > Listowner: Gaila Merrington [email protected] > > > > > > > > ==== BUSBY Mailing List ==== > This is a very friendly list, so please feel free to ask for help or see if you connect with Busbys/Busbees/Buzbees/Busbices on the list. > >

    01/21/2004 02:01:38