Hi Folks- I thought it would benefit the entire list if I posted the answers to my email query regarding the "senior" and "junior" designation. and hope you don't mind. I received excellent advice in this matter. Thanks to all who responded! Jeanne Johnson (researching RYMAN and BOSWORTH) QUERY It has been suggested that "Junior" did not necessarily designate the son of the "Senior" but rather it was a term used back then by relatives with the same name and used to designate one from the other. Does anyone have knowledge or experience in this matter? RESPONSES: 1) It happened all the time Jeanne, even with men who were not related but had the same name, to distinguish the older from the younger. 2) I have found that one of my ancestors was designated as junior although he had the same name as his grandfather, not his father. He and his grandfather were both adults, taxpayers, etc., at the same time and I believe it was done to try to eliminate confusion. Futile effort, I'm still confused. I think it was also done for some of my uncles and nephews with the same name. 3)Your assumption of the nephew being the JR. is most probably correct. This occurred all the time back them, and this just made for more confusion, particularly in large families of sons who named their own sons the very same first names 4) That is true and it also applied when the grandson was named for his grandfather. 5) I cannot say about your particular situation, but I have seen the terms Sr. and Jr. used on the same surname for a relative that was not actually a son. I have even seen it used for men with the same names who lived in the same area, but actually were not even related to each other. It was just to designate the oldest and the youngest.