From: llama_nom
Message: 7587
Date: 2006-11-26
> A matronymic was possible, but only in rare cases, usually if thefather's name was unknown.
>changed
> AIUI - in most every case where a patronymic is used - it cannot be
> because you are the child of your father - if he acknowledges youand you
> are sprinkled with water and he formally accepts youdifficulty that
> I believe this is the case today
> To use a Matronymic might suggest that your fathers name be not known or
> that he has not acknowledged you - with all the concomittant
> entailsbreaker.
> Or - perhaps your mother was of a noble line and Daddy was not
> At all events I am almost sure that .........'s wyf is not recorded
> You are whom you are - complete with Patronymic
> Kveðja
> Patricia
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Lodin Myklebust
> Date: 25/11/2006 15:41:43
> To: Norse Course
> Subject: [norse_course] Female names
>
> Our group was discussing the practice of female surnames and the various
> sources of surnames including nicknames, location names, etc. A sticking
> point on married names or family names came forward. We need a tie
> Could someone venture an answer?husband. It
>
> Opinion 1
> >If you're married, you would be described as the wife of your
> would be a little insulting if you continued with your father'ssurname, as
> it suggests you're embarrassed to take your husbands name, so Ragnaborgdaughter of
> Haroldsdottir becomes Ragnaborg Vlladswif, if her husband was generally
> known as Vllad.<
>
> Opinion 2
> >I was of the understanding that the tradition was for women to take the
> mothers name...example...Helga Oglasdottir..meaning Helga the
> Olga.. I thought the whole point of surnames in that time period was to
> determine what lineage you were from..and had nothing to do with who you
> married.<
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lodin
>