The literature is about welfare tests, fraud, grammar and household registers — institutional reasons for friction.
No naming statute worth citing requires a stroke-count. If a private consultant adds one, that is not the law.
Findings
- UN / academic reviews — States vary wildly
From Icelandic lists to U.S. state patchworks — “naming law” is a family of regimes.
- Mannanafnanefnd — Grammar is a legal test
A name that cannot decline can fail — phonology meets statute.
- Namensrecht scholars — Welfare as a veto
A name that would harm the child can be refused.
- Koseki scholars — The register is the person
Character lists and surname unity are not etiquette; they are file design.
- Biavaschi et al. — Law shapes labour-market renaming
U.S. historical name changes sat inside a relatively permissive regime — contrast with Germany.
- Bertrand & Mullainathan — Law does not block bias
Even where almost any name can file, hearers still stereotype Emily vs Lakisha.
Mechanisms
- Inventory — A list of allowed names or characters.
- Standard — A welfare, grammar or public-order test without a closed list.
- Procedure — Who applies, who objects, whether the public is notified.
- Household file — Koseki-type systems that tie your name to a family unit.
Debates
- Is a committee dignity-protecting or paternalist? — Iceland’s global argument in one line.
- Should married partners be forced into one surname? — The koseki debate.
- How much fraud-friction is worth the dignity cost? — Publication of name changes vs safety.
Legal science here is comparative procedure. Keep fortune out of the footnote.