I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.