ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

by Phillpots Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:49 pm

Does anyone know when our government made it compulsary for us to use ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS regarding our surname? I've searched and can't find the answer. Plenty of birth certificates out their on the internet that do not use ALL CAPS in the surname so I thought it would be interesting to know. Maybe an FOI request might do it but if anyone knows then great.

by Waffle Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:43 pm

Dunno but I've seen BC's from 1957 (two) that DO NOT have the SURNAME, in fact they do not have the surname at all, ONLY christian name, so I would take a guess that the sometime after that?? But you would probably have to look at the Anglican takeover after the Protestant Reformation. I only found out the other day that Anglican is Catholic I still don't understand how we can have a catholic CofE and a Protestatnt Supreme Govoner of the Church, unless I'm misinformed here.......

If I go back to some earlier definitions I provided anything in all caps distinguishes it as PROPERTY, taking this into consideration it could be way before the dates I suggested....

by Phillpots Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:57 pm

Thanks Waffle

I saw 1953 so yes after this could be right. Yeah we just don't know exactly. I'm sure we will find this out.

by Waffle Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:08 pm

Hi Philpots

If you read the Births regulations 1968, they tell you name includes surname, but in the births regulations 1987 they tell you name excludes surname.

Why are they including SURNAME after 1968, but excluding SURNAME after 1987, yet although surname has been excluded from certain registration practices after 1987 it is still included on the BC......

Here are the links to the 1968 and 1987 regulations consecutively

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1968/2049/regulation/2/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/cy/uksi/1987/2088/regulation/2/made

They might help you with what your looking for......

by Phillpots Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:19 pm

Thanks Waffle

You will have to leave this with me as I will need to get my head round the links and my own investigations into this subject.

by Waffle Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:26 pm

It appears SURNAME was not part of the 1953 protocol, only appearing on BC's after 1968, but as far as it being in all caps I can only imagine it is from 1968, unless others have a BC prior to this date that suggests otherwise.

Maybe in or around 1968 is the year to look or the changes you mentioned in your first post.....

Anyways, I'll leave it with you

by Phillpots Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:30 pm

Jump in as my own certificate has my father in ALL CAPS (surname) 1964, so this is a good subject to learn I think - lets see where it takes us. I'm interested.

by Waffle Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:33 pm

OK thats interesting, the Family name was being used in ALL CAOS before. Is your surname on the BC at all?? or is it only first and second name?

by Phillpots Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:35 pm

Good question I will need to dig it out and come back to you most probably tomorrow.

by Guest Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:10 am

Hi guys

Maybe as long as they've been issuing the military with dog-tags?

Cheers!

by **daveiron** Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:43 am

I do not know about dates on B.Cs . but at the other end its been going on for a very long time.

by Phillpots Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:25 pm

Hi Waffle

It just has in colunm 2 under Name, if any my first and middle name. The only times ALL CAPS are used is from my parents. So I'm linked to my parents just like my son is now linked to me. For thought on this I suppose.

What happens when you take this back in time. When was a surname first introduced. It does go a long way back, but I'm after when did our government put a date on this ALL CAPS - CRAP.

Hi daveiron

Seen this and its good as they all are. Great awakening videos for sure. It does go way back.

by Phillpots Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:32 pm

surname (n.)
c. 1300, "name, title, or epithet added to a person's name," from sur "above" (from Latin super-; see sur- (1)) + name (n.); modeled on Anglo-French surnoun "surname" (early 14c.), variant of Old French sornom, from sur "over" + nom "name." As "family name" from late 14c.

An Old English word for this was freonama, literally "free name." Meaning "family name" is first found late 14c. Hereditary surnames existed among Norman nobility in England in early 12c., among the common people they began to be used 13c., increasingly frequent until near universal by end of 14c. The process was later in the north of England than the south. The verb is attested from 1510s.

Source: Online Etymology

I think the interesting part here is 'The verb is attested from 1510s.' I think verbs are legalize and this period in time is an interesting time to study. That's a slight distraction from what I'm after but still I think linked to what I'm after and this era and the years that followed in putting a system together play a huge role in what we have today - 'I think' Surprised

by Waffle Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:03 pm

Hi philpots

It's info I'm interested in too. I'm yet to pin point it all.

What you'll find is people used to have a surname that was occupation relative such as John Blacksmith would have been John the blacksmith. Or if people were venturing into other villages it would be John London, John of Londo so also surname had geographical centiments. But not everyone had a surname.

Sorry I don't have dates for this info.

Apparently they made it legal or lawful or imprinted in some way into society that everyone had a surname.

I might have some notes on it somewhere but can't look until later.

Hi iamani

I like your thinking sometimes the simple answers are the best. But it didn't get us away from the fact that it's in all caps, which appears to be dog Latin organisational symbology. Family name, well we both know the history of Familia, all caps legal familia name is property. We don't own it because it's been Regis t ratione. Personally I would say it's title to the familia estate, it's title to the trust corpus, but that's just my take on it. The fact they put sur infront of it strongly suggests to me that it is in action, which it would be and one needs to take action to get their title reversed. Now is it in action because it's temporarily vested in us, ultimately being property of the crown or is it in action up for action to be revested in us as the true rightful owners, as the CQV act 1707 suggests...... After all it's the ONLY name that is taken at the hospital, it's like it's taken then returned for our posessoy use whilst we're here, be taken right back as soon as we cease to esse......

by Guest Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:23 pm

Hi Waffle

i suspect we're only one little epiphany away from the answer. It might only take one more piece of info to put it together.i keep getting the feeling, like a mental itch, that it's on the tip of my tongue....

There's too many people looking at it for it to remain a secret, and it's too important to ignore.

Is there any legislation regarding the use of names and surnames?

Phillpots is a new pair of eyes covering ground we've already traversed. Perhaps he'll spot something we missed or failed to realise the importance of.....

Cheers!

by Phillpots Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:13 pm

Would I be wrong in saying that there is no legislation that states you need to use ALL CAPS? If so then surely the only person asking when you fill in the BC will state to both mother and father 'when you fill your name in this colunm here and this one, make sure you use [ROMAN] CAPITAL LETTERS on your surname only.'

Oh why oh why? I should have asked so many years ago.

by Guest Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:32 pm

Hi guys

Phillpots - i don't think you would have got an answer fella.

Waffle - ok, just throwing this out - might be something or nothing.

Yesterday i posted something on the 'playing with Sir name' thread - that 'sur' also translates to 'bridge'. When this bridge is placed between the first and last names it can signify a bridge to convey us (our living man lower-case christian name) from the realm of the living into the realm of the dead (ALL CAPS dead-thing name).

My first thought was to see if i could find a connection to bridge loans - nope.

So i searched 'the bridge between life and death' on d.d. go and found an article:'women on the land: the bridge between life and death'. It made for interesting reading.

If so inclined then take a look and see how many points in it match up to things we have found about the BC.

It might be something.

Cheers!

by Waffle Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:10 pm

Philpots - it's only the registrar who writes in the registration book, our parents would sign, but that's it. So the registrar is told to use all caps to distinguish Christian names from surnames, I've asked. That answer certainly dosnt suffice for me.

Iamani you might be onto something interesting search, it may get a little more complex here but I shall try and explain.

Legal - dead - state name - man
Ecclesiastical - living - Christian name - living soul

Parentis loci parentis patriae

When a woman gives birth hospital the name is taken by the legal state when the birth is registered you are bridging the separated church and state therefore the name becomes a Christian (e)state. If the mother is single the state is paretis loci if the mother is married the business partners are married to the state, parentis loci for parentis patriae farther of fathers....

Could those three letters sur be fulfilling multiple purposes for that action, just as if we are reading a definition in blacks e.g SUR means 1. & 2. & 3.

I haven't come across any legislation that directs the use of language in the manner suggested, I think it would be independent to law. Definitions yes but I believe we may need to look deeper to figure out if the case of words is a lawful procedure.

I can't find much on the use of name apart from the birth acts and registration, you can go into titles at land registration title is/can be a name see the chequers estates act. The name is the title and can never be changed, it was enacted sounds s little like a surname dosnt it.....

I shall be off to look at this post you speak of

by Phillpots Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:25 pm

Waffle I see your point but that would that mean there is no legislation and the slight trick of hand is to accept by 'The Registrar for Births and Deaths.' So is this person pulling the wool over our eyes? Think not, what do others think?

This is great, keep going, thoughts maybe, links perhaps, anything to take you and I closer to an answer.

Unless I missed it there is nothing in here about ALL CAPS. Page 5 was interesting.

The only time ALL CAPS is used on the last page

Printed by GEORGE EDWARD EYRE and WILLIAM SPOTTISWOODE,
Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty. 1874.

Maybe there is someting in this. Who knows?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1874/88/pdfs/ukpga_18740088_en.pdf

by Waffle Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:48 pm

This doesn't have the answer but is interesting, EU law

http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-4100400en.htm

by Waffle Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:50 pm

This doesn't have the answer but is interesting

see "c"

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style

by Phillpots Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:59 pm

Has anyone ever asked a FOI on this subject? I suppose they would just fob you off with some cr*p. But no legislation. If there is no legislation, what would that mean? By consent only - looks like it.

by Guest Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:54 am

Hi guys

Waffle - you must be ahead of me, i don't think i got what you got from those links. What i got from the first link is a flash of anagogy on the first line - i saw 'property' noun to be capitalised and 'common-law' noun to be all lower-case. Put me in mind of the BC.

The 'C' link - was it 'capitalisation' that caught your attention?

Cheers!

by Guest Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:55 am

Hi Waffle

Just a quick one: your two BC's with no surname - perhaps their parents objected and/or claimed the child as their offspring/fruct (like they were supposed to)?

Do these BC's have any other differences ie are they void of anything resembling a NINO or CUSIP?

Just a thought.

Btw: Sur; Black's 1 & 2 & 3 -feckin YES, absolutely! Why didn't i think of that?

Cheers!

by Guest Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:54 pm

Hi guys

Waffle - fella, get yourself over to Steve Mccrae's yt channel for his latest vid: 'the cestui que view acts both seen and hidden', and be ready to take some screen shots.

That goes for anyone interested in the CQV, there's good info there not to be easily found elsewhere.

Seriously - check it out!

Cheers!

by Sponsored content

ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS

Re: ROMAN CAPITAL LETTERS