ANSTHRLD - Name Documentation - Mikhail Kettering

Perry M. Catron pmcatron at
Thu Feb 22 08:40:41 PST 2001

Thanks for the infromation, I will review name further.

>From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at>
>To: heralds at
>CC: star at, pmcatron at
>Subject: Re: ANSTHRLD - Name Documentation - Mikhail Kettering
>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:11:10 -0600 (CST)
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Ansteorran Kingdom Star Principal Herald
><herald at> wrote:
> > Barring that he would like to try for Michael of the Fray. He is a
> > member of the SCA group called 'The Fray' and has permission from
> > the group for using the locative. The problem is that the name is
> > not registered with the SCA and I do not know enough about names to
> > know if this is possible. I have my doubts, but it never hurts to
> > ask.
>I have a tangent about the letter of permission: it can't hurt, and it
>might possibly help, and it's certainly a nice courtesy, but I think
>that, strictly speaking, it's not needed.  Certainly an *SCA branch*
>does not control use of their name in surnames -- I can be "Daniel of
>An Tir" without a letter of permission of any sort, and in fact they
>can't block it in any way.  But this is apparently some sort of
>household, and I don't know of any precedents on households.  But I
>suspect that, like with SCA branches, the household name is also
>unprotected for personal surnames.  There's a Bruce precedent that
>talks about the reverse direction from the instant case:
>     In particular, since a period house name was so often simply the
>     surname, byname, or epithet of its founder, any such epithet that
>     is acceptable in a Society personal name should be acceptable as a
>     Society household name.  This is the rule of thumb I've formulated
>     for determining the acceptability of household names henceforth.
>     If we would register John X, we should register House X as well.
>so I think that in at least most cases, House X would justify Michael
>X.  That is, if X is justifiable, you could at least in most cases use
>the same line of reasoning to say that Mike X is OK.  The only grounds
>for return would be pretense, but I have a hard time thinking of a
>SCA household important enough to protect.
>However, I doubt that "of the Fray" is doable.
>Fray is in Reaney & Wilson (3rd ed p 177 sn itself) as a given name in
>that spelling 1230 and 1232, and as Frei and Fray as a surname
>starting in 1275 (the common case in England of a given name turning
>into an unmarked surname).  However, they say "Old French Fray, a
>personal name of which the origin is unknown.  v. Dauzat."
>So he could be Michael Fray if he likes, but I don't like suggesting
>it because it doesn't mean anything like what he or anyone else might
>think by looking at it.  It just means that he had a male ancestor
>named, for some unknown reason, Fray.
>But I'd sigh silently internally and mention it anyway, because he may
>want it and it is unethical for me or any other herald to hide data
>from a client.
>Daniel de Lincolia
>Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: tmcd at;
>if that fail, my work address is tmcd at
>  "To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting 
>  thing up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka.Korpela at (Jukka 

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

Go to to perform mailing list tasks.

More information about the Heralds mailing list