No, it would be Hallgrímur Sigurdsson and Steinunn Sigurdardóttir (to use some real Icelandic names). It’s always the father’s name. If the Icelandic have the same system as we had in Sweden until some 150 years ago, the only time a child would get a matronym instead of a patronym would be when the father was totally unknown, which normally was the case when the mother was the village whore, a factoid that always gives me a huge amount of pleasure whenever I see som radical feminist going around with a name like Britasdotter.
Make that Sigurðsson and Sigurðardòttir. My internal spellchecker was off.
I assume it was this:
(from my 365 Stupidest Things Ever Said calendar, authoritative source that it is)
Floater is correct, but this site suggests it is permissible to do it matrilineally now. In which case it would be John Mollyson and Betty Mollydottir, or Mollysdottir, or Mollyadottir, or however they make their possessives in this case. Incidentally, Björk’s last name is Godmundsdottir.
Not sure I see the difference; this is what Sailor is talking about. There may be benefits to doing this, but registering with any civil authorities is simply not done upon moving in the US. The exceptions undermine that a bit; if you want to drive a car, your license should be up to date and in the appropiate state, if you want running water, the utility may be a branch of the municipal government.
Or rather Guðmundsdòttir 
If you don’t register in a municipality (you’re automatically registered in your place of birth, the subsequent changes are your own responsibility), you’re not eligable to vote in the municipal elections of your new place of residence. Also, a lot of things in terms of licenses et cetera require registration in the proper municipality.
IIRC, in the US, you register for each individual election. Sounds far more complicated to me, from an administrative point of view.
And I’d like to thank the Scandinavian contingent for correcting me on the Icelandic name system. But why IS Bjork named after her mother, then? A divorce?
I thought “Gudmund” was a man’s name. Shows how much I know.
Sorry I gave the wrong impression; Godmund is her father.
Elections: Yes, if you want to vote, you need to register separately for that, although in recent years they’ve appended this to driver’s license registrations. As long as you vote regularly in the same location, no need to re-register. Otherwise they’ll take your name off the books after a number of elections, depending on state law.
A quote from Beyond Jennifer and Jason by Linda Rosenkrantz and Pamela Redmond Satran:
*According to Norwegian Name Law, Paragraph 15, Number 2 [let me just say here that it boggles the mind that they can have so many paragraphs dedicated to name law] parents are forbidden from giving their children names “that are or have been used as surnames and are not originally first names.” Amonng those names prohibited: Russell, as in Bertrand, and Scott, as in Sir Walter.
The Norwegian Name Law also forbids any name that is “a disadvantage to whom it is given.” Examples cited: Adolph and Elvis.*
A further quote from the same book:
*French parents who give their children unusual names like Jade or Cerise are…breaking the law.
An 1803 law drafted under Napoleon, who disliked eccentric names…gives the government final say over parents’ choices of names. And if a name is “ridiculous” or “likely to provoke teasing,” the court has the power to throw it out and substitute one it deems more suitable.
Judged illegal in recent years have been Prune, Jade, Cerise, Manhattan, and Fleur de Marie [whose parents fairly recently lost an 11-year lawsuit on this very issue].*
So apparently it’s a fairly common practice in Europe, but frankly it makes me gag. Bleh. This is not an area requiring government oversight, IMO.
No, you only need to register once in the town in which you plan to vote, and then you can vote for as long as you can legally claim residence in that town. Elections are all handled by the state and municipal governments, so when you move (either intra- or inter-state) you need to re-register with your new local government in order to vote.
Coldfire:
Not true. Register at a location, you remain registered to vote there, with no further effort on your part, for as many elections occur until you die or re-register elsewhere.
OK, OK, enough already! 
In that case, I don’t understand the objections against the European practice of registering in the city you live. It’s all for adimistrative purposes, one way or another. Just something that’s part of living in a society, not a disconcerting governmental interference.
Sigh. I can see why there was never a hit TV show “Holland’s Most Wanted.” The phrase “fugitive from justice” loses a lot of meaning when such folks line up to register at their hideaway’s town hall. The great thing about the US is our freedom to choose to live under a bridge, or on a separatist ranch in Texas, or take odd jobs while hitchhiking across country, all without having a legitimate mailing address, registering to vote, getting a library card, having running water, paying child support, or any other civic responsibility. Or, if we choose, we can do just one of those (I think the Unabomber had a library card). These things are not forced on us; we are free to wallow in our own ignorance and paranoia.
I’m going to cut this short now, it belongs in Great Debates.
You could do the same things over here, dqa. There’s no OBLIGATION to register yourself anywhere. The only “fixed” thing is the registration in your town of birth. But you have to register newborn babies in the US too, right? It’s not like thousands of people are born and live without a trace, unless I’m missing something here.
There’s a guy in thr UK who, because of a massive dispute with his bank, changed his name(OK, admittedly not the same as registering a baby’s name) to ‘Natwest Bank plc are Fascist Bastards’; they closed his account in preference to issuing him a new cheque book, but he insisted that they pay out his balance by cheque, tee hee.
I think there are very few, if any restrictions as to what you can name a child in the UK, however, it’s my understanding that in some continental European countries the tradition (and perhaps indeed the law?) is that you must name your children after Catholic saints.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jr8 *
**
It is indeed a man’s name. Your knowledge is sufficient.
First off, almost all of the Norwegian name law deals with last names and “middle names”. A Norwegian middle name is not the same thing as an American middle name; basically, it is another surname taken from the child’s extended family, or a patronymic/matronymic. These names show kinship and at one time it was important for economic reasons that kinship be properly established. In a country where arable land is very scarce, you want your family farm to stay in your family.
Secondly, Rosenkrantz and Satran may think that Russell and Scott are prohibited. I’d like to see a cite for a case where parents attempted to name their son Scott and were refused. As far as I’ve seen the local registrars’ offices only care about the “misuse” of Norwegian surnames; otherwise they wouldn’t have allowed the ongoing plague of small Thomases, since Thomas has been used as a surname in English.
Great.
Why don’t you just come over to my house Drake and drive a punji stake through my heart.
The novel I’ve been working on for well nigh to four years and which is now in the hands of a discriminating editor has a 38 year old big burly male from Germany named Sascha.
Little did I know that that would be a controversial name choice.
jarbaby
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Floater *
**
Gosh – that’s the nicest thing anyone’s said to me all week. <sniff>
Somewhere or other I have a document describing common naming practices in most countries around the world (family names, patronymics, matronymics, which comes before what, etc.). Fascinating stuff. Iceland is one of the few countries where the child does not inherit a “family name”. It must be hell for genealogists.
Actually, quite the opposite. Patronyms make things easier. Esp. when combined with the traditional naming practice of first son after paternal gfather, etc. I’ve done a lot of on-line searches at the Norwegian Digital Archive and the easiest searches are from when the patronymic system was still common. In the late 1800’s, when fixed family names became common in Norway, things get harder. (But, fortunately, that’s about when my ancestors left town.) I also hit a wall along one branch because the (foreign) family name “Rosendal” was being used c1700 instead of patronyms.