Could only find this thread on -esque, and it's now closed
Are there rules about using suffixes -esque and -ian as in Rooseveltesque and Rooseveltian to describe things as having a quality of FD Roosevelt? And what about the suffix -ite; next week sees the funeral of former UK prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, and her legacies are described as "Thatcherite", so would Rooseveltite be acceptable?
There will be new examples every day - is it Chavaesque or Chavaian or Chavaite, and presumably it comes down to what feels right - "Chavaian" and "Chavaite" feel less natural. On the other hand more than one might be acceptable, it seems.
A Thatcherite politician might well not be Thatcheresque.
I think that the answer to this whole class of questions depends mainly on euphony, and to a small extent on humour: e.g. the delightful Liverpuddlian.
How do you mean? Is -ite more philosophical and -esque more physical, for example?
The safe thing for learners is not to attempt to create such words; not many native speakers do.
A Thatcherite politician would agree with and support her aims. A Thatcheresque politician would display similar characteristics but could have very different political ideas.
I'd endorse 5jj's advice. Don't innovate. There are many such suffixes, all with different connotations, and there are many existing oddities. For example, if you invent "Chavian" you'll risk confusion with the existing 'Shavian' - which refers to George Bernard Shaw.
Possibly, but one must read this Russel Brand article if one brings up Thatcherites.
Russell Brand on Margaret Thatcher: 'I always felt sorry for her children' | Comment is free | The Guardian
Thanks for responses but I'm not sure the "don't innovate" is particularly sound advice. English is a big language, but having the ability to turn a person's qualities into a recognisable adjective enriches the language - we could refer to a comment as sarcastic, biting, pitiless, provocative but wouldn't Cowellesque provide a richer description in certain circumstances.