Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The spelling on the submission was [Name] St. [Name]. We register the full name, not a scribal abbreviation (which is what St. is). Therefore, we have corrected the spelling. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 13) (See also: LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 5; LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 4; LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 4; LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 8; LoAR 24 Jan 88, pp. 4-5; LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 3)
Note that the fact that the name is registered in its proper form does not forbid the use of abbreviations by scribes where this is appropriate, both in names and other contexts, and in fact the use of period style ligatures and abbreviations should be encouraged in everyday use. (LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 5)
Note that long tradition indicates that the Society registers the full form of the name, not a specific scribal abbreviation of it. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 3) (See also: LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 17)
The usual Anglo-Saxon feminine patronymic ending was "dohtor". (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 8)
At the September, 1986, meeting, this submission was placed in the pending file to await the results of research into the proper form of Basque names requested from a correspondent at the University of London. Since three months have passed with no adequate response to that request, fairness to the submittor demands that action be taken. Note that acceptance of this name should be taken as a special case, establishing no precedent for the formation of Basque names submitted in the future. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, pp. 4-5)
For the form [Name], which was stated to be Basque, no documentation was given. Therefore, we have substituted a period spelling given by Reaney for the family name from the town of [place] in France. Note that the pronunciation of the two names would be virtually identical. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 5)
[Shire of One Thousand Eyes (Pocatello, Idaho)] Almost without exception the commenting heralds felt this name was non-period in style. However, it is the sort of name which is not at all uncommon in the fantastic literature, period and modern, which also forms a background to our Society and therefore seems legitimate, if the populace of this group are prepared for the humorous jibes that will inevitably come their way. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 5)
The addition of a single word is not sufficient difference between Society branches (NR20). Therefore, [Name]gate would not be sufficiently different from [Name]. Logic then would indicate that [Name] should not be sufficiently different from the already registered name of [Name]gate. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, pp. 19-20)
It has previously been ruled that translations of such generic names as these [Riversmeet, Aberafonydd] may be registered if the group with which it conflicts [by translation] gives permission. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11)
"There is a special allowance for SCA branches to use obsolete names for their territories, so an SCA branch actually in London could call itself Trinovantia -- but no one else may." Ironically, this group is in London, but the wrong one: London, Ontario. Given the mundane location, we suspect that the College would look favourably on a suitably modified name formed in the (late) period manner such as Nova Trinovantia. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 19)
This was shown on the letter of intent as a new name in conjunction with a transfer of her tinctureless badge to her new persona. This is incorrect and could have confused the armorial.... Such transactions must be labelled as a change. When such a change is made, all armoury attached to the previous name will automatically be transferred to the new name unless specifically accompanied by a request for release or additional change. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 2)
As the "coined form" ... would, if it existed, be a diminutive of the [Name], it was not acceptable for registration. Instead, we have substituted the radical form ... itself, which is attested as a given name as early as 1180. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 7)
The given name was stated to be "the Irish name Rowan as it would be spelled by a French monk or priest after only hearing it once." Unfortunately, not only is this somewhat debatable, but this is also a documented period English spelling for the name of the French city of Rouen (Reaney, p. 296). Therefore, it cannot be accepted as a constructed variant. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 15)
While NR10a is somewhat ambiguous, the more general requirement of a primary language in NR3 also applies and there was prior precedent for applying the naming practises of the primary language to a made-up name. As the name was stated to be constructed according to Welsh practise, it had to be judged in those terms. [The principal herald] noted in the submission that medieval Welsh did not form dithematic names. If this is interpreted ... to mean that it does not form "mix and match" names as did Old English, for instance, this is correct.... We do feel that constructs in Welsh must be approached with a greater degree of care, not merely because of the requirements of mutation, but also because the dithematic constructs which are documented in period appear to have recoverable meaning: a name like "war peace", which is perfectly acceptable in the Germanic tradition, would apparently not have occurred.... We have been persuaded by additional evidence that the summarized evidence originally presented led us to conclude erroneously that the component portions of the names were not separable name elements in period Welsh. If the components appear in multiple Welsh names, then the name becomes considerably more plausible. We ... conclude that the new evidence has nudged it this side of "compatibility". (LoAR Jun 88, p. 13)
[Kavien] Although said to be a made-up name, it does not follow the naming practises of German, which appears to be the only identifiable language in the name: the ending is that of a participle and the only [similar] words we were able to find in German were imports from other languages.... The only commenter to find anything at all close to this form ... located it as a surname derived from a place name. All in all it fails to meet the requirements for a made-up name under the old rules and the strictures on Invented Names in the new rules (II.3). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 6)
We tend to take a more conservative view of name conflicts from current events (i.e., after 1650) than most and generally would not be too concerned about industrial conflicts. However, in this case, where the individual [Thomas du Pont] appears in non-specialist paperback biographical dictionaries as well as dozens of books on industrial history of the early twentieth century and has his name plastered on more public structures in the mid-Atlantic than you could shake a stick at, we are inclined to be a bit more rigorous. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 16)
The judgement as to which names will conflict clearly involves making a decision as to what the common use form of a formal name would be. To put it another way, although one or more elements of a name may be changed, would the name by which an individual would commonly be known ... be sufficiently alike as to cause confusion. Most people in the Society in usage (and often in court) drop place names of origin, no matter how integral they may be to someone’s persona story.... In this case, the obvious result is that the common use forms for both names are [the same]. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, pp. 17-18)
Although the appearance and meaning were adequately different, the assonance brought this name into conflict with Edwin Bersark. Note that several local heralds and non-heralds felt that they would not have been able to tell certainly if Edwin Bersark or Ellin Berserkr were being summoned if they heard a reasonably competent herald shout the name across a tourney field. This seems an excellent touchstone for "aural conflict". (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)
[William Robinson] This name provoked considerable discussion amongst the Laurel staff as to whether the number of famous individuals who bore a certain name materially affected the degree to which the name should be protected. It was our conclusion that it should not: there was more than one Richard Plantagenet, all of which were famous, and all should be protected. Thus this name is in conflict with [several famous Bill, William, and Will Robinsons]. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 18)
The new rules are quite specific in stating that addition of one phrase when the names consist of three or fewer phrases do not conflict (V.2, p. 5). While the name [here] certainly will be considered presumptuous by some, the elements in the name are common enough that we cannot say that it "unmistakably" claims identity with the most famous Graham of all (V.5, p. 6). (Ed. Note: This is the sort of case that gives Laurel heartburn.) (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 3)
Under the old rules, [the commenting herald] would be correct in seeing this as a conflict by exact translation with the famous author James Baldwin. Under the new rules it is not: while "Baudoin" sounds enough like "Baldwin" to conflict by translation, "Jacobus" and "James" are even farther apart than the examples of "Mary" and "Miriam" used in the rules (Translation, V.4.b, p. 6). (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 8)
[Gopher Pursuivant] While tradition has (up to a point) protected IPOCery, under the new rules there is no conflict with the Order of the Mordant Gopher by the Addition of One Phrase Rule (V.2, p. 5). (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 24)
Under the Addition of One Phrase in the new rules, this is still not clear although both names have fewer than three phrases since the only difference is the addition of the adjective before the noun, which is not considered an independent phrase (V.2, p. 5). While one element as defined under Addition of Two Elements (V.3, p. 6) is added by the addition of [the adjective], the article and preposition specifically do not create difference. Addition of a surname here would carry it clear under both sets of rules. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 38)
Based both on our intent and the discussions with Badger at the time we thrashed out the various rules, we decided that the notes on spelling variants, translations, etc. were amplifying in nature and do not override the primary definition of sufficient difference: "There must be a significant change to both the sound and appearance of one word to be considered significant." (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 41
[Geoffrey Thomas] Note that this name does not conflict with Geoffrey Thomas du Chateau Versoix under the new rules since "du Chateau Versoix" is considered to be a single phrase for the purposes of determining whether there are three or more phrases in each name. Since there is also the addition of this phrase, the two are clear. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 10)
Cross-gender names are so well-established a tradition in the Society that it would be pedantic to object that the byname is masculine in form. However, ... Gaelic would normally demand the feminine form of the byname. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 7)
Since [Name] is a diminutive form with no evidence for period use as an independent name, we have registered the formal given name from which it was derived. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 7) (See also: LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 20; LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 5; LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 3)
Although a diminutive, numerous period sources show [Name] well-established as an independent form. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 5)
Although Yonge shows Karina as a Danish form of Katharine, the tables in which the name appears contain a number of forms which are documented diminutives (e.g. Reta and Greta) and other evidence indicates that Carina or Karina is a diminutive form. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 1)
As the "coined form" ... would, if it existed, be a diminutive of the [Name], it was not acceptable for registration. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 7)
Diminutives are permitted under the new rules. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 5) (See also: LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 6)
For both name elements no documentation was given beyond page references to relatively non-standard volumes not available to the Laurel staff at this point.... [A] holding name has been issued and the submitted name held pending the receipt of more solid documentation (I will accept Xeroxes from the sources cited, even though they be not the best). (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 8)
The name Moriah has been returned previously ... on the grounds that it is a Biblical place name, the mountain where Abraham prepared to sacrifice Isaac, and not a form used in period as a given name. No evidence has been presented to contravene that precedent. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 17)
Note that solid evidence for the use of the form Lucina as a given name in period was derived from Withycombe (p. 200, under Lucy). It should not be taken as precedent for the use of the names of stars as given names in the Society. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 14)
The name ... was documented as a feminine name solely from Kolatch, which is notorious for its lack of interest in drawing distinctions between traditional and modern names. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 19) (See also: LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 7; LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 13)
She enclosed a Xerox of her birth certificate: that’s documentation! (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 6)
Insufficient documentation was provided to demonstrate that [Name] was a period given name in Serbian or any other language. Documentation in support of the formation and meaning of the byname would also be helpful. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 22)
We do not normally register diminutive forms for the given name unless there is documentation that it was used independently in period. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 20)
[Genet] Two etymologies were given for the given name, neither of which is acceptable for period usage. [One] involves creation of a new "flower name" and such have long since been barred from Society usage. The alternative meaning ... is not, so far as we can determine, used in period as a given name. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 11)
The [Norse] citations noted ... unfortunately are all from the Penguin English translations, which are notoriously random in their forms: although they seldom obscure the given names and patronymics often take modern English forms or are compounded of modern and period forms. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 12)
Although a diminutive, numerous period sources show [Name] well-established as an independent form. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 5)
For the form [Name], which was stated to be Basque, no documentation was given. Therefore, we have substituted a period spelling given by Reaney for the family name from the town ... in France. Note that the pronunciation of the two names would be virtually identical. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 5)
By the submittor’s own documentation the given name was that of one of the sons of Genghis Khan. Such names, e.g. Genghis, Temujin, etc., have in the past been returned as unique names failing documentation to demonstrate their more general use in Mongolian society. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 12)
Arguments from plausibility must give way to actual evidence ... in this case, a theoretical radical usage must give way to actual diminutive usage. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)
The only documentation provided in support of the [byname] ... were a few lines ... from the ... gift shop proprietor cited as the source for the translation. Since no one in the College could come up with any supporting documentation for anything similar..., some more substantial documentation must be required from the submittor. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 10)
Documentation is required for period use when a name is demonstrably a place name in period. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, pp. 10-11)
O Corrain and Maguire (Gaelic Personal Names, p. 162) ... notes two usages of the given name, both apparently for non-humans.... Evidence for the name’s use by humans is required. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 13)
Arianrhod was the Welsh moon goddess and, failing evidence for human use of the name in period, may not be used in the Society. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 13)
The explanation offered by the submittor for the given name on the basis of Provencal orthography is not compelling, particularly since [Name] is [a] Cornish common noun.... This being so, our rules demand some evidence for its use as a given name in period. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 15)
The given name was stated to be "the Irish name Rowan as it would be spelled by a French monk or priest after only hearing it once." Unfortunately, not only is this somewhat debatable, but this is also a documented period English spelling for the name of the French city of Rouen (Reaney, p. 296). Therefore, it cannot be accepted as a constructed variant. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 15)
The ... extremely lengthy appeal covered several points and was copiously documented with extracts from several genealogical and heraldic works.... It is a pity that so much of her documentation supported the original return....
Documentation was submitted to support the existence of [Name] as a surname and appeal was made to the familiar Camden citation as evidence that surnames were used in period. However, precedent reasserted by Master Baldwin ... (December, 1984) has reaffirmed that names used solely as surnames in period may not be used as given names: Camden notes an anomaly peculiar to late sixteenth century England and we must draw our general rules from the common usage, not the anomaly. She needs to have a given name.
The submittor states that the Campbells were actually lords of Lochow or of some other seat and not of Argyll. Unfortunately, her own documentation indicates that Sir Duncan Campbell of Lochow, created Lord Campbell in 1445 and chief of the clan, assumed the designation of Argyll. The use of the name Campbell of Argyll in modern mundane usage is tantamount to a claim of kinship with the chief and it will be so taken by the bulk of members of the Society, causing offense to some. (LoAR Aug 87, pp. 15-16)
Insufficient documentation was provided to determine the grammatical accuracy of the bynames or their plausibility in the form [submitted]. Unfortunately, the intent of the submittor as to the intended meaning of the byname is unclear. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 16)
The documentation of the given name was from [Evelyn] Wells, which is not a very good source. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 1)
Arthur’s Etymological Dictionary of Family and Christian Names ... is not a reliable source, being a rather old volume of the "what to name your baby" and "what does you family name mean" variety. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p 2)
Names appearing in Katherine Kurtz’ novels are not automatically acceptable for Society use. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 4)
[Documenting mundane name] The College is quite reasonable and, although a photocopy of a birth certificate is the usual simple proof in such cases, a copy of a driver’s license or other such "proof" item would be acceptable. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 18)
Despite our high respect for [Name] and her expertise in [language] (it’s what she does for a living), we have to have some idea of why she thinks it is O.K. to register this name form. Specifically we need to have documentation of the meaning and construction of the elements in this name, information not included on the letter of intent or on the forms. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 14)
The name "Aegir" is not Celtic, as stated on the letter of intent, it is the name of the Norse god of the sea and, as such, is not eligible for use in the Society unless it has been documented to be used by normal human beings in period. Such documentation has not been forthcoming. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 14)
Under the old rules, the admissibility of the name ... formed on a [language] model from a place name in a role playing game would have been extremely arguable. Under the new rules, which do not have a "source test", the fact that the structure is compatible with [language] naming practise makes the name admissible. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 4)
The documentation for the appeal includes a resubmission of the lengthy persona story to which the submittor is clearly very attached, but persona stories are irrelevant to registration and in this case the story owes less to period sources than nineteenth-century fairy tale redaction. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 26)
The given names were documented form a book by Eric Partridge called Name This Child: A Dictionary of Modern British and American Given or Christian Names. This title alone casts some doubt on its value as evidence! Virtually no dates are given for any names, which is problematic for our purposes since many last names are included as valid given names which were not known in period as given names (in a few cases, possibly not even as surnames in period). (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 3)
The source for the given name (Loughead) is very unreliable. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 15)
The commentors who noted the precedent that allowed Sindarin names from Tolkien but not Quenya names to be used were correct. There seems no really compelling reason to make this distinction: both linguistic sets derived from Tolkien’s lectures on medieval linguistics and both use period elements to form names in a period manner, albeit of a language that did not actually exist in period. The basis of the distinction seems to have been a feeling that "High Elven" would have been used only by Elves and "Low Elven" could be used by Men and other races and thus that Quenya names were a claim to Elvish origins. This seems an unjustifiable conclusion and one that is too restrictive, given the common derivation of both languages from period linguistic morphemes and morphological practises. [Quenya allowed] (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 4)
Old English did not randomly pull elements from its linguistic resources for name construction: there was a fixed and rather restrictive pool of elements in use. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 14)
From his own documentation "[Name]" appears to be an epithet rather than a given name ("the [Name]"). This is not permissible. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 17)
The epithet "de Flora" is in fact precisely the sort of epithet that occurred in medieval Latin when it attempted to render vernacular place name or attribute epithets in official or literary documents (e.g., the twelfth-century theologian Joachim de Floris whose works were condemned by Thomas Aquinas). (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 6)
[(Name) of Sea Change Eyes] It was the consensus of opinion in the College that this epithet transcended even the relatively relaxed standards for "fantasy-style" epithets in the Society. Not only is an article lacking before the noun formation, as one would expect, but the term "sea-change" is itself a noun, not an adjective, and is not used in this manner. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 22)
[(Name) le Fey] Although [the principal herald] provided at least one period citation for the use of "le Fey", not every name usage which was permitted in period is allowed in the Society because of the associations that a majority of the populace would place on the name.... In this case, the feeling among the commentors and Laurel staff was just too great that the populace would interpret this byname as a claim to non-human origins. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 21)
The submission was made with a comma before the ... epithet. The Society does not generally register extraneous appositives (that is the meaning of the comma: to separate the epithet from the "real name") so we have dropped the punctuation. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 7)
The position that the existence of a name in a piece of fiction from a pre-technological era automatically compels acceptance by the College is contrary to a long tradition in the College of Arms.... This is one of the oldest "allowances" and is restrictive rather than permissive. In other words, it was placed in the rules at the time to prohibit certain forms of fantasy names, not to legitimize fantasy names as a category. Indeed, the wording of the current rules specifically says that fantasy names may be accepted, not that they must be and there is a long tradition of requiring proof of compatibility for the use of such names. For as long as we can remember, names drawn from fantasy have had to obey other strictures (e.g., the ban on names which include titles or claims of rank) and this clearly is still the case. On the basis of [the principal herald’s] thesis, the College would be required to register "Smurf", if an enterprising fantasy writer named one of his or her characters that (formally or informally). Somehow we doubt that is what is intended! (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 17)
The household name is formed from a noun + noun combination, which is common in Finnish and perfectly acceptable. However, all our sources showed all the combined forms involving "taivas" (sky) retaining the "i" of the noun stem in the combined form so we have modified the submitted spelling ... to reflect this. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 6)
"Heather" is a modern flower name which would be acceptable only if the submittor bore the name mundanely. This has been the case ever since 1983 when Wilhelm von Schlüssel specifically cited it as a post-period "flower name" in ruling against the use of "flower names". (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 19)
Neither a "y" for an "i" nor a "k" for a "c" substitution occurs in French. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 12)
[de Fay] This is a documented French family name that alludes to an abode by a beech tree, not the form with the simple article (e.g., "le Fee") which has been returned for appearance of claim to non-human origins. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 3)
[T]he name Maire was hardly ever used in the period before the seventeenth century, there being a general feeling in Irish circles that the name was too sacred for everyday use. (In fact, the name Mary only really became popular in Ireland in the nineteenth century when it was the usual anglicising of the old Irish name "Mor".) In period circumlocutions like "Gilla Mhuire" (servant of Mary) were commoner so that a patronymic like "mac Giolla Mhuire" would actually be more accurate [than macMhuire] for period Ireland. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 7)
The name Rowan is the standard Anglicization of the Irish name Ruadhan (O Corrain and Maguire, p. 157). (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 5)
The genitive of the masculine personal name, which shows possession or descent, usually aspirates in Scots Gaelic where this is possible. This phenomenon is obscured in some modern sources ... but is regular in older texts.... (An irreverent sociological theory from one of the Laurel staff: the exceptions to the aspiration of the genitive of the proper name after a patronymic particle are more frequent when the individual is male suggesting that, while daughters were always property, sons only sometimes were!) (LoAR 29 Mar 87, pp. 9-10)
If [a name] can be prefixed by the patronymic particle Mac, it can be prefixed by the more generalized particle "O". (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 9)
It would appear that the form Eirianwen is a modern backformation on the analogy of the period name Arianwen. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10) [Returned for this combined with problems with the byname]
O Corrain and Maguire (Gaelic Personal Names, p. 162) ... notes two usages of the given name, both apparently for non-humans.... Evidence for the name’s use by humans is required. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 13)
The normal position for adjectives in Irish is following the nouns they modify. (LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 4)
To use the Gaelic particle "ni" a properly modified Gaelic form of the [Anglicized] name would be required. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 1)
As the remainder of the name is Anglicized, the Gaelic preposition na seemed decidedly out of place so the lingua franca preposition [of] has been substituted. (LoAR of 23 Apr 88, p. 1)
[Shannon] This Anglicized form seems to be associated virtually exclusively with the river Shannon (or the Airport!). Therefore, we have substituted the similarly pronounced period form [Seanan] suggested ... on the letter of intent. LoAR Aug 88, p. 11)
The submitted middle name ..., which was stated to be made-up, has been dropped since our rules demand that manufactured names match the dominant language of the name and this seems compatible with neither [the language of the given] nor [language of the surname]. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 3)
The occupational byname ... has been dropped since it was the consensus of opinion in the College that this fell under the ban on conjoining titles or honourifics with a place name. He may be [Name] the [Occupation] or [Name] of [Place], but not [Name] the [Occupation] of [Place] (while in "real life" hermit might not have been a title or honour, in the world of the period romances upon which so much of our ethos is based it frequently was used as a title as much as vicar or priest was in period legal documents. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, pp. 2-3)
Note that Master Baldwin, in his letter for the 18 May meeting indicated that [the submittor] would have to register a badge to protect her name. This was erroneous: even if it had not been attached to a badge or registered as such, it would be eligible for protection under NR15b "The College of Arms reserves the right to protect the unregistered names of past monarchs and great officers." (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 4)
Kolatch is notoriously unreliable as a source for period names. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 7)
The Rules require that any common noun be specifically documented in use as a given name before it may be used. The use of animal names in general in period Jewish life is demonstrated by the documentation, but not this particular name and ... this [one] is considerably less likely than some. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 18)
The addition or removal of a single adjective or adjectival phrase, such as a patronymic, is not adequate to difference a name (NR7). Note that the addition of a single secondary patronymic in Celtic languages such as Welsh or Gaelic contributes little difference since in colloquial usage the name formation tends to be a given name plus a single patronymic even if a further patronymic appears in formal documents. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 21)
By the submittor’s own evidence "[Name]" is not a given name, but rather is derived from a descriptive.... He needs a given name. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 14)
Adding an undocumented suffix form [‘d’] to an out-of-period name does not make an acceptable Society name. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 8)
The fact that the name was registered previously in the Society is more or less irrelevant with regard to [Name]: at the time when the name ... was registered (1975), the forms did not even have a space for name documentation! (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 14)
Whether the overall effect of the "given name" is intrusively modern is admittedly a judgement call: on either side some element of the subjective must be present.... The determination that the name was excessively modern was based on "test exposure" to a fairly large sampling of gentles in the street (i.e., those not members of the College of Arms who uniformly had problems with the name. [Registered for other reasons.] (LoAR Jul 88, p. 3)
[Hartshorn-dale] [The principal herald] has provided late evidence (title page dated 1600!) to support the use of the hyphen in geographical names in period. However, this is definitely an anomaly and the name would be far better spelled without the hyphen as one word or two, as it most likely would have been spelled in period. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 10)
While the locative would not normally pass under the current rules, there is overwhelming precedent for allowing spouses and children of those with registered bynames to use those bynames, even if they are no longer "legal". (LoAR Aug 88, p. 15)
As this is a common noun, under NR10 compelling evidence for this name used in period as a given name must be provided. As we have often commented before, the fact that a name with meaning is used in one language does not mean that it will be used in another. For instance, although the actual meaning of "Athelstan" is "noble stone", we would not allow someone to register "Noble Stone Jones", even though Old English is the same language pool as Middle and Modern English! While there is a great deal of evidence that a number of primitive cultures have used totemic animals for names derived from transferred epithets, the use of names like Arthur, Bjorn, Ursula, etc. do not necessarily demonstrate that "Bear" would be used in English. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 22)
While the "conflict by translation" clause in the current rules has been localized in the group names section, personal names which have been direct translations of Society names and/or the names of famous individuals have been returned for conflict for years when they have been noticed. A result of the increasing knowledge of foreign naming practises over the past decade may be a slightly increased probability of such conflicts being noticed, but they are not a novelty. Indeed, members of the Laurel staff can remember Eastern submissions being returned as direct translations of Society names during the tenure of Master Wilhelm. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 25)
Unfortunately, [the submittor] allows no changes whatsoever to his name so that the minor problems with the grammar of the patronymic can be corrected. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 19)
While the name will be slightly tautological if the Barony uses the common reference "Companions" to describe members ("Companions to the Order of the Companions of the [Name]"), it is legal. (LoAR 28 May 1990, p. 1)
[Name] is the name of an Irish lake and there is no evidence that geographic names were used as personal names in period.... Though there are a number of geographic entities in Ireland that bear names which were used in period as given names, either for humans or non-human figures of legend, in every case that we have been able to find, the geographic name is derived from the individual, not the reverse. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 3)
The preposition "von" is not used in German with an occupational name. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 9)
There is [an] intriguing little volume by one Roland Mulch which rejoices in the typical German scholarly name of Arnsburger Personnennamen: Untersuchungen zum Namenmaterial aus Arnsburger Urkunden vom 13. - 16. Jahrhundert. Among the joys this includes are a name list of given names that appear ar Arnsburg, by date ... and citations of both given names and family names in context. Among the gentles that appear are Clas Gorre (1478), Clas Gumpracht (1424), Claus Gonter (1491) and Claus Heytges (1529). As these citations are drawn from official documents, they would seem to serve as hard evidence that Klaus was an independent name in period (the use of the initial "c" instead of "k" is a regular feature of the local orthography). (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 6)
The original submission of the name change [to "Thorin [patronymic]"] was returned because the name Thorin was held by Laurel to be an exclusively dwarven name both in Tolkien and in Norse myth and therefore not eligible for use in the Society. The submittor has presented an impressive array of arguments in support of his position that the name is in fact compatible with the period ambience which we are trying to create and that the bulk of the populace would not (and in fact do not) feel that he was claiming dwarven descent by using the name. Taken by themselves, they add only plausibility to the argument that the name could have been used in period for a human. The existence of the Irish patronymic form "O Torain" cited by MacLysaght (Surnames of Ireland, p. 288), which would derive from a nominative form of "Torin" argues that it was actually used. Therefore, acceptance of this name should not be taken as a general precedent for non-human names in the Society. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 2)
The name [Name] has been returned previously ... on the grounds that it is a Biblical place name, [a] mountain ... and not a form used in period as a given name. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 17)
"[Name]" appears to be an epithet rather than a given name ("the [Name]"). This is not permissible. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 17)
Kendra long since joined the select list of names which, like Fiona and Gwyneth, have been deemed "compatible", although they cannot be documented in period. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 6)
[Genet] Two etymologies were given for the given name, neither of which is acceptable for period usage. [One] involves creation of a new "flower name" and such have long since been barred from Society usage. The alternative meaning ... is not, so far as we can determine, used in period as a given name. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 11)
While the rules clearly agree ... that documentation is required for period use when a name is demonstrably a place name in period (which Brandon is, as early as 975!), the consensus of opinion in the College was that it would be reasonable to add Brandon to the handful of out-of-period names (Fiona, Corwin, etc.) that are accepted in Society use since only an "a" and "o" separate it from the acceptable "Brendan" and the pronunciation of the two names in the dialects that predominate in modern America are nearly identical. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, pp. 10-11)
"[Name]" is not a given name, but rather is derived from a descriptive.... He needs a given name. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 14)
The name Trevor is a Welsh place name (generally spelled "Trefor" in Welsh) which does not seem to have been used as a given name until the middle of the nineteenth century. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 15)
[Aelf] A search through Redin [Studies in Uncompounded Personal Names In Old English] ..., revealed that he cites (p. 3) at least one "Aelf diacon" (i.e., "Aelf the deacon") who appears in the documents included in Kemble’s edition Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici. Given the source and the occupation of the person bearing the name, we must assume this to be a legitimate formal use of the name by a human! (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 16)
[Aislinn] It is not necessary to support the given name on the grounds of "compatibility": it has amply been documented as a period given name in the past. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 1)
[Howard] This is a case where Withycombe, who feels that the use of "Howard" as a given name is of relatively recent origin (p. 156), would seem to be in error. Reaney (Dictionary of British Surnames, p. 184) cites numerous period instances of its use as a given name occurring as early as Domesday Book. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 6)
As [Name] is the name of an Irish lake and there is no evidence that geographic names were used as personal names in period, we have modified this to the almost identically pronounced Irish given name [Name]. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 3)
The ban on the use of surnames as given names goes back well into the last decade to the tenure of Mistress Karina and has been reaffirmed by every Laurel since.... The citation from Camden with regard to the practise "in late years" of surnames as given names has been considered on a number of occasions by the College of Arms. The standing precedent was set by master Baldwin in December, 1984, in the case of Dunham Wycliffe when it was decided that the Camden citation referred to a late and anomalous practise and that the use of surnames as given names should be limited to surnames actually shown to have been used as given names in period. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 31) (See also: LoAR Aug 87, pp. 15-16)
There are problems with the use of the term "Borough" in the context of the current territorial structure. Since it has previously been registered for non-territorial "College/Canton" type groups in the East without official status, it cannot really be recognised as an official designation equivalent (unless or until all "unofficial boroughs" either become official or their registered items are released). On the other hand, ... the term is not really appropriate for a household or other non-territorial group. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, pp. 21-22)
The submittor’s own documentation indicated that "min" in an "inseparable preposition" from Hebrew. By our rules this means that the place name would have either to be Hebraic or be from a language which demonstrably merged in this manner. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 24)
The name was stated ... to be Yiddish, based on evidence from Kolatch, but that source includes many modern Israeli names which would not have been used even a century ago. Some documentation must be provided for the use of the two name elements in period. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 13)
I was extremely distressed by the number of submissions with acceptable armoury that I was compelled to return in their entirety ... because the submission forms specifically stated that no changes, however minor, could be made to the spelling or grammar of the name. Unless there is some indication that a holding name would be acceptable, I am compelled to take statements that no changes may be made to the name literally and return the submission as a whole.... There are several options open to consulting heralds to resolve this situation: advise submittors not to prohibit changes to the name, request them to state on the forms if a holding name is acceptable, or to ... add a line to the forms requesting the submittor to indicate if formation of a holding name is not acceptable. Of all the options, the latter is probably the most satisfactory and I heartily recommend it to all Kingdoms. (I hate returning a beautiful armorial submission because of technical problems with the name!) (CL 20 Mar 87, p. 2)
[House (name of a town)] The town ... is an actual period town, one of no small size even in Domesday times. [Household name returned] (LoAR Aug 88, p. 20)
Effective immediately, the registration of a household name will not carry protection against infringement by others who may, through use of the name in their personal names, claim to be members of the household. Household names will continue to be protected against infringement by the names of official groups, orders, heraldic titles, other household names, etc. For example, the name of House Smith would not prevent registration of the name Peter Smith, but would prevent registration of House Green Smith, the Order of the Iron Smith and the title of Poor Smith Herald. (CL 20 May 89, p. 6)
The new rules have dropped the specification of conflict where no presumption is involved, a step that made sense when the household name no longer affect[s] use of personal names. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 25)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane