[ANSTHRLD] photo copies or not

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Local Pursuivant <seawindsherald at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I can show all elements of a name have been passed by Laurel in
> their respective positions, is that not enough?

Not even "not enough": it's no evidence at all.  The usual phrasing is
"Prior registration is not evidence of current registerability."
Every name element has to be documented on its own.

An old registration is particularly problematic.  Name standards have
been tightened a lot over the years.  In the earliest years, the name
was just the identifier on the form, and there were basically no name
standards whatsoever.

Even for a recent registration, an element may have been registered
under the Legal Name allowance, or may have been grandfathered, or may
have been deemed an "SCA-compatible name" at the time but not now.

> (Nothing fancy here, submitter wants "Roderic Greenfield")

Bless you for giving the actual name that provoked the question!
Does he have a proposed culture, time period, language, request for
extra authenticity (hence extra changes)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Withycombe is not all that helpful.  3rd ed., p. 255, s.n. Roderick,
says "Rothericus son of Gryfin is mentioned in [Feudal Aids] 1303",
which would be enough to get it registered in an English context from
the 14th C.

She said it's from Old German Hrodric (c.f. Rurik, Roderigo), "not
infrequent in Scotland", but hardly productive anywhere else.  And
"the corresponding Welsh name Rhydderch", but she doesn't say whether
the Welsh name is derived from Old English, or whether it's
"corresponding" only in the sense that people conventionally rendered
them as such in each language (like how Charlie and Toirdealhbach were
equated only because of having a vague resemblance in sound).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reaney and Wilson 3rd ed. p. 204 col. 2 s.n. Greenfield has

    Greenfield: Peter de Grenefeld 1242 Fees (Sf); John de Grenefeud
    1296 SRSx.  'Dweller by the green field'.

It doesn't have "field" in that exact spelling, and the names that
start "Field" are no help -- looks like "feld" was the common Middle
English spelling.  The Oxford English Dictionary, 1st ed., vol. F
p. 192 s.v. Field: I can find

- "feild" dated to about 1300 (but everyone would misspell his name
  then)
- "feeld" to 1382 (Wyclif) and c[irca] 1400 and c 1449 and 1578
- "field": their first citation is 1561, and the next one is
  Shakespeare (A Midsummer Night's Dream, 1590)

"Feld" and "felde" are the most common spellings, but "feeld" or
"feelde" is not uncommon either.

Similarly, vol. G p 397 et seq s.v. Green: there's one "greene" listed
as "?c1430", but their citations only start to be "greene" or "green"
around the same time as "field", the very end of period (Shakespeare
has a few of the first citations too).

So Reaney and Wilson's "Grenefeld" really is the most common spelling
and justifies that name from the 13th C in an English context, and
presumably in a Scots context too.  "de Grenefeld" is just as
reasonable, and since it's attested it makes it even safer in
authenticityishness.

Danihel Lindonium
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com