The baptismal name, ie christened or Christian name, is sanctioned by the Church. I'm going on memory now, but a strong case was made here - http://books.google.com/books?id=sYk...%20law&f=false - that name changes without authority are without legal effect.Originally Posted by walter
I find that very interesting. It appears that a Christian name is sanctioned by the Church and its authority, while the surname is today sanctioned by the State. A person's front name is also sanctioned by the State, in lieu of being sanctioned by the Church. The idea that a man can adopt a new name at will - and without legal repercussion - appears to be spurious, at least according to that treatise. This explains why courts continue referring to people as AKA or alias, even after they begin using their Christian name only.
Now, connecting this with the idea that the NAME is subject to a trust, is another interesting exercise. I think the way to look at the NAME, rather than it being property, it is instead the authority the NAME re-presents to society that is subject to the trust. If someone assigns himself a new name, and begins using it according to an unrecognized authority, he is acting outside the bounds of civil society, and automatically is regarded with suspicion.
By itself, a name may indeed by property, but unless there is some kind of acting authority sanctioning its use, one is using it unlawfully in matters concerning Church and State. I am reminded of Moses' question to the Lord, where in response permission was given to refer to God as: I Am Who I Am. The Lord did not submit by providing a NAME. Moses and the people were given a license to use that appelation in place of a name.
It appears to me that defining what a NAME is makes for a very difficult proposition. I would say that a NAME is a symbol of authority (or lack of authority) to act in society. So in court, when a NAME is called to appear, what really is being asked is for the man to declare (by his appearance) the authority to whom he submits.
The question about whether a NAME is subject to a trust, then, seems to be entirely on the shoulders of the one bearing it. I suppose one could call that role an executor, unless the actor is incompetent. The man is free to choose unto whom he places his trust, and call on that authority to act in his stead.
Reply With Quote