No, but Nancy Sinatra is the only woman I know of who is referred to as a Jr. She was the daughter of Frank Sinatra and Nancy Barbato and the one who sang "These Boots are Made for Walking"
2007-02-14 23:57:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by HSK's mama 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. As xHopeful said, "Mary Jones Jr." would become "Mary Smith" by 18 or so, and the distinction becomes worthless. Our naming conventions were formed long ago, when women were expected to be married by 18 or so, and to be "Mrs. John Jones".
A man and his father might both be adults with the same name in the same county for 30+ years, figuring John Jr turns 21 when his dad is 40 and John Sr. dies at age 70. People needed to distinguish between the two. While he was at home, they would call the child "Johnny" or "Junior". After he got his own farm, or if the census enumerator came around, he would be "John Smith Junior" to keep him separate from his dad. John's sister Mary wouldn't need the distinction; she would, typically, stay at home until she married and changed her name.
2007-02-15 00:43:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's a good question, unfortunately I don't think there is one; However I have always thought using the age old royal tradition to be very distinguishing for young children. eg:Elizabeth and her daughter Elizabeth the 2nd.
2007-02-15 02:01:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by MsTrust 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
I would say no.
My reasoning being, the girls name wont stay the same. Assuming she is married, its traditional for the lady to take the mans last name. So by doing so, it kind of null and voids the whole "jr miss" thing.
For men, its the case that their last names "usually" don't change.
2007-02-14 23:33:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by xhopefullookx 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have never heard of one. You would think there would be.
2007-02-14 23:30:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by redhotboxsoxfan 6
·
0⤊
0⤋