# Getting married - wife keeping maiden name



## elefantfresh (21 Aug 2007)

Probably going to annoy a few people here  
Was talking to the sister a couple of days ago and the question came up about people getting married and the woman keeping the maiden name.
She reckons that she'd like to keep her name and i said that that could "worry" a few people.
 I dunno if i'm some sort of traditionalist but speaking to friends they've all pretty much agreed that they wouldnt be overly happy if their wive to be was to keep her own name. Many of them said alarm bells would be ringing. "If she's putting her foot down now before we're even married..." etc.
I'm not trying to start a row here but i'm curious to know what people think of this.


----------



## casiopea (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

Its a really interesting one.  I didn't change my name.  It wasnt for feminist reasons, prior to getting engaged I didnt have strong opinions on it either way but when it came to it, it didnt feel right.  I discussed it with my better half and he really didnt care and said it was fine by him whatever I wanted to do so it was left at that and I never changed.   What really surprised me though were the reactions I received.  His parents were a bit upset, which I was sad about as they are lovely people but they just asked if we'd kids what surname would we use and we said just theirs (ie no double barrelling) they were happy.  The only group of people that I seemed to offended were my own peers - women my age.  I was really surprised at that.  One good friend said to me "but who will I send the christmas card to next year?" to which I said "the same people you sent it to last year".  People in work (again my age) have passed many comments, one guy said to me "what email address will I use - hasnt yours changed by now" at least 4 or 5 times (basically everything he's to send me an email) and he's clearly put out that I havent changed.  I find it very amusing.

At the end of the day my husband didnt mind either way, that is the only person who's opinion on this topic matters.  For my part if people do refer to me as Casiopea Swiss-surname rather than Casiopea Irish-surname I really dont mind and I dont even correct it (unless its for formal documentation). Im happy, Husband is happy, everyone else can change their name if they wish we dont mind - no problem!


----------



## Vanilla (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

Does any really care anymore about this? She should do whatever she wants to herself. It might cause her a few administrative problems but really if she keeps her birth cert and marriage cert to hand it is quite easy to surmount these.

I use both names. My maiden name at work and my married name whenever my husband is listening... Only joking. Actually it can be really handy to have two names. Especially if you're in a semi-hated profession like mine. So when I'm not at work nobody connects me with it.


----------



## Vanilla (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

Mind you if his surname is horrible then she should just stick with hers.


----------



## Caveat (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

We talked about the surname issue fleetingly (I'm married)

Neither of us would be 'traditional' I suppose but we didn't regard the issue as a big deal - suppose in the end we decided that adopting my surname wasn't particularly egalitarian but that double-barreled was definitely out.  In the interests of older relatives and the possibilities of relentless questioning about any married name other than my surname - we went with that.

Don't know about the 'putting the foot down' bit but if the other half _really _wanted to keep her own name I'd want to know exactly why I suppose...


----------



## Vanilla (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

I think a more interesting question would be the childrens' names. Both of our children have their father's surname. I think he would be really upset if they didn't. Funny that.


----------



## capall (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

I think it means alot in most families to see a surname continuing into the future


----------



## The_Banker (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

I got married 2 months ago and my wife didn't take my name. To be honest if isn't something I even care about.
Whats in a name?


----------



## Gordanus (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

How would men feel if they were obliged to take the wife's surname?


----------



## Caveat (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Gordanus said:


> How would men feel if they were obliged to take the wife's surname?


 
I for one, honestly wouldn't be bothered - as long as there was a logical/good reason to do so.


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

My wife initially kept her own name which I didnt mind. Our child has my surname - issue never really came up other than in joking terms.

My wife now has renewed her passport changing it to her married surname - she just felt it was less hassle than, say, travelling with a child of a different surname & the questions that would follow it. So she's now a mixture depending on the age (i.e. from what "era" of contact it arises) & origin of the letter.

I think double barrell is naff - particularly if 2 very Irish surnames (as is the case). Also I wouldnt be too gone on children having the mothers surname - I think that, for right or wrong, its suggestive that the parents arent quite together.


----------



## efm (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Gordanus said:


> How would men feel if they were obliged to take the wife's surname?


 
Wouldn't bother me in the slightest - the collection of letters after my first name doesn't define who I am - my winning personality, dashing good looks and unflinching modesty is what make me what I am


----------



## Vanilla (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



The_Banker said:


> I got married 2 months ago and my wife didn't take my name. To be honest if isn't something I even care about.
> Whats in a name?


 
If you have children, do you care what surname they will have? Just out of curiousity.


----------



## z109 (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

Both my wives have kept their own names.

See! Nothing to worry about!


----------



## elefantfresh (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



> Both my wives have kept their own names.


 
double trouble - he he!


----------



## purpeller (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Betsy Og said:


> Also I wouldnt be too gone on children having the mothers surname - I think that, for right or wrong, its suggestive that the parents arent quite together.



It's tradition that has a child taking their father's surname.  A friend of mine tried to argue that it was against the law to have your mother's surname if your parents were married.  I had to resort to showing him the specific legislation to prove it (you can have either, both, a combination of both or something completely different - as long as there's a good reason in the last case).

Personally (I'm a woman), if I do have kids, I want them to have surname, which I would absolutely never change.


----------



## Pique318 (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

See in the states, the idea of merging the names is taking hold. My wife an I have this as our user account on the laptop but nothing else, even though it's actually not the worst.

The gist is that the names are merged like so:
Smith & Jones - Smones etc...


----------



## Caveat (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Pique318 said:


> Smith & Jones - Smones etc...


 
C'mon - who is going to take the bait?


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



purpeller said:


> Personally (I'm a woman), if I do have kids, I want them to have surname, which I would absolutely never change.



Yes, I agree that children should have a surname.  

If you meant to say that you would insist that they have your surname then don't worry; with a attitude like that it won't come up


----------



## pc7 (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

I'd take my boyfriends name I think a little bit of tradition is nice,


----------



## capall (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

In America they had a tradition of surnames becoming first names so that a name wouldn't die out,like Blake and morgan for example.


----------



## MrMan (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

I wouldn't like to drop my surname, and I would like my kids to have it cause I'm the only boy in the family, but my gf is from a family with no boys and she has mentioned from time to time that she would like to carry her fathers surname forward so a clash looks to be inevitable! If it does come down to it, it won't put a strain on our relationship as we both understand the others perspective, but we also both want to make our Daddy's proud!. I suppose its engrained in our dna, so i guess i am an outright traditionalist.


----------



## casiopea (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



MrMan said:


> I wouldn't like to drop my surname, and I would like my kids to have it cause I'm the only boy in the family, but my gf is from a family with no boys and she has mentioned from time to time that she would like to carry her fathers surname forward so a clash looks to be inevitable! If it does come down to it, it won't put a strain on our relationship as we both understand the others perspective, but we also both want to make our Daddy's proud!. I suppose its engrained in our dna, so i guess i am an outright traditionalist.



Any chance you can double barrell? Im not a fan (normally) of double barrelling but this sounds like a situation where it is warranted.


----------



## MrMan (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

No I hate double barrell, we're not putting pressure on each other and i suppose we could just run with our own surnames and divide up the kids!

I guess we can only really decide when it comes down to the crunch, my only worry is I've yet to win an argument


----------



## foxylady (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Caveat said:


> I for one, honestly wouldn't be bothered - as long as there was a logical/good reason to do so.


 
well whats the logical reason for a woman taking the mans name???


----------



## ClubMan (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

Don't forget that even apart from a marriage situation you can [broken link removed].


----------



## Caveat (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



foxylady said:


> well whats the logical reason for a woman taking the mans name???


 
Well generally none - but see my post above:  We at least had our own logic for sticking with my surname.

I suppose I'm saying that for me, if my partner _really_ wanted to use her surname, there would have to be a good reason. In our case, my above points would probably still apply.


----------



## ragazza (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

I would never change my name on marriage, since I just dont see the point in it.

It also sounds like it would give rise to so much administrative hassle and confusion. You would have to change all your credit cards, passport, driving license, bank details etc to your married name. When you loose your wallet its such a pain having to update all your documents, so I would never volunteer to do it.
Also, do people change all their logins to on-line accounts, like Gmail, Amazon, RyanAir, downloading music etc? (my login is always the initial of my first name, followed by my surname). I cant imagine the hassle of changing all my weblogins and email addresses. 
If you dont change them all, you need to remember which login has your maidan and which has your married name.
It just sounds like a logistical nightmare having two names.

Having said that, if I was married, and someone referred to me as Mrs Married Name (like on a hotel reservation etc), I wouldnt mind.

Funnily enough, nearly all my friends have changed their names on marriage, though I would never have thought them to be that traditional.
My sister and sister-in-law didnt change their names, and they haven't encountered any problems with their children having a different name to them.

In spain its a bit more equal - the children take the surname of both parents. So everyone in spain has a double barrelled surname, reflecting both their parents.


----------



## foxylady (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Caveat said:


> Well generally none - but see my post above: We at least had our own logic for sticking with my surname.
> 
> I suppose I'm saying that for me, if my partner _really_ wanted to use her surname, there would have to be a good reason. In our case, my above points would probably still apply.


 
what have elderly relatives go to do with what your wife decides to call herself and what would you think would be a good reason???


----------



## Caveat (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Caveat said:


> We talked about the surname issue fleetingly (I'm married)
> 
> Neither of us would be 'traditional' I suppose but we didn't regard the issue as a big deal - suppose in the end we decided that adopting my surname wasn't particularly egalitarian but that double-barreled was definitely out. *In the interests of older relatives and the possibilities of relentless questioning about any married name other than my surname - we went with that.*
> 
> Don't know about the 'putting the foot down' bit but if the other half _really _wanted to keep her own name I'd want to know exactly why I suppose...


 
Above in bold were our 'good reasons' - may not be everyone's good reasons.  By older relatives I mean not rocking the boat - they were, I should say, my wife's elderly relatives  so that's what it has to do with 'what she decides to call herself' - it was her idea not to upset their traditional sensibilities and to take the line of least resistance!


----------



## foxylady (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Caveat said:


> Above in bold were our 'good reasons' - may not be everyone's good reasons. By older relatives I mean not rocking the boat - they were, I should say, my wife's elderly relatives so that's what it has to do with 'what she decides to call herself' - it was her idea not to upset their traditional sensibilities and to take the line of least resistance!


 
Fair enough but when you say "Don't know about the 'putting the foot down' bit but if the other half _really _wanted to keep her own name I'd want to know exactly why I suppose..."
Why would you need a reason ?


----------



## terrysgirl33 (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

In my experiance changing my name on passport/drivers licence etc etc was very straightforward.  However, I didn't try, and I'm pretty sure it's impossible, to change your name on qualifications (degrees etc.) which can make it practical to keep your maiden name professionaly.

BTW, who here is married to a wive???


----------



## Caveat (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



foxylady said:


> Fair enough but when you say "Don't know about the 'putting the foot down' bit but if the other half _really _wanted to keep her own name I'd want to know exactly why I suppose..."
> Why would you need a reason ?


 
Well the 'putting the foot down' reference was not my phrase - paraphrasing the OP's comment.

I just mean I would need *some* reason - e.g. feminist beliefs/don't like your name/love my own name...other than just e.g. "I'm keeping my name" "Fair enough" discussion over. In our case, we discussed the using of my surname and came to the conclusion that it's what we would do.  

I suppose I'm saying that some decisions can be made out of stubbornness dressed up as 'principles' or because it is fashionable.  Not I hasten to add applicable in our case or perhaps not in the cases that Elefantfresh referred to, but it can happen.


----------



## The_Banker (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Vanilla said:


> If you have children, do you care what surname they will have? Just out of curiousity.


 
To be honest, No.
I have an unusual surname and my wife has a common enough surname. When (if) we eventually have children I will allow her name them. She will have carried them for 9 months and went through the pain of labour so she can decide the christian name and the surname (be it mine or hers).

However, I would just ask that she keeps the surname the same for all the kids


----------



## MrMan (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



> .She will have carried them for 9 months and went through the pain of labour so she can decide the christian name and the surname (be it mine or hers)



Women seem to a bit of a monopoly in this department (not complaining here), but surely it is a decision that both parents should share together


----------



## The_Banker (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



MrMan said:


> Women seem to a bit of a monopoly in this department (not complaining here), but surely it is a decision that both parents should share together


 
probably... I will have input I suppose but ultimately I will leave the decision up to herself...


----------



## efm (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



The_Banker said:


> I have an unusual surname.......


 
Calvi?


----------



## purpeller (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



ragazza said:


> In spain its a bit more equal - the children take the surname of both parents. So everyone in spain has a double barrelled surname, reflecting both their parents.



How does this work?  Surely each parent would have 2 surnames as well - does everyone end up with massive long names?


----------



## Darth Vader (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

Dont see the point in changing surnames. i didnt and dont care if people refer to me as Mrs maiden name or Mrs married name, doesnt seem all that important. I dont see why a man would insist on it, i'd be very wary of any man who did.


----------



## mf1 (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

I think there is something of an automatic assumption by some people ( mostly men but a surprising amount of women also) that there is a legal/social requirement for women to adopt their husbands surname on marriage.  It is a rather old fashioned idea ( a bit like referring to a wife as Mrs. Stephen Smith for instance) and possibly stems from the time when a wife was regarded, in law, as a husband's chattel or possession. 

It is an old tradition - nothing more or less. There is no legal basis for it at all. I am intrigued by an underlying feeling by some of the posters ( mostly male, I gather) that there would be something odd/unusual/ uncomfortable about a woman choosing to keep her own name on marriage. 

I'm more surprised these days at any woman choosing to change her surname on marriage. 

mf


----------



## ailbhe (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

I think I'd keep my name if I married my partner. We have a daughter and technically she has both surnames(double barrell) but she mostly goes by my surname. Thats just the way it worked out. I have often suggested that he take my name if we got married, he's the only boy left to carry on his family name so it probably won't happen.


----------



## Sue Ellen (21 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



yoganmahew said:


> Both my wives *have* kept their own names


 
Are they both still your wives?


----------



## BillK (21 Aug 2007)

My wife has kept her maiden name as a middle name, so that in her passport she is Mrs SGK; our son's intials are SJGK.

No problem for either of us.


----------



## ragazza (22 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*

Originally Posted by *ragazza* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=472767#post472767 
_In spain its a bit more equal - the children take the surname of both parents. So everyone in spain has a double barrelled surname, reflecting both their parents._




purpeller said:


> How does this work? Surely each parent would have 2 surnames as well - does everyone end up with massive long names?


 
Each parent has 2 surnames - one from their mother and one from their father. Only the first surname from their mother and father gets passed on to their kids, so everyone just end up with 2 surnames.

For example, if the father is : Fernando Alonso-Garcia
and the mother is : Arancha Sanchez-Viccario
their child would be :
Baby Alonso-Sanchez.

The father's surname always goes first in the double barrel.
When Baby Alonso-Sanchez has a child, only the 'Alonso' part of his surname will be passed on.
So the mother's surname only lives on for one generation, whereas the father's name keeps getting passed on.


----------



## purpeller (22 Aug 2007)

Thanks for the explanation - I've wondered about that for years.


----------



## blueshoes (22 Aug 2007)

Well when I get married Im taken his name, cant wait to annoy his mum as im not seen as part of the familly at the moment mm...maybe this will.


----------



## mprsv1000 (22 Aug 2007)

My "wife to be" wanted to keep her name, so I told her fair enough but in that cae you can buy your onw engagement ring and pay for the bloody wedding, funly enough she decided to take my name, I really wish she had stuck to her principles, would have saved me a fortuine...


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

Can any of the men give a reason why they it is so important to them that their wife takes their name? Have been watching this post with interest and it seems that not all the men are happy with their wives keeping their name. Why is that? mprsv1000 even seems to have resorted to what amounts to blackmail to ensure he got his way.... I think that for the women involved they would naturally have a close attachment to the name they have grown up with, why is their history to be so glibly discounted by their significant other if they wish to retain it? What is so important about the man's surname? Leave aside what the children are called, that is a different quarrel.


----------



## Caveat (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> Can any of the men give a reason why they it is so important to them that their wife takes their name? Have been watching this post with interest and it seems that not all the men are happy with their wives keeping their name. Why is that? mprsv1000 even seems to have resorted to what amounts to blackmail to ensure he got his way.... I think that for the women involved they would naturally have a close attachment to the name they have grown up with, why is their history to be so glibly discounted by their significant other if they wish to retain it? What is so important about the man's surname? Leave aside what the children are called, that is a different quarrel.


 
Thought I'd just take this opportunity to clarify as I think I have been misinterpreted.

As a man, I would have no problem whatsoever with my wife keeping her own name.  

My earlier point that I would want to know why or to know a reason for it is, I don't think, unreasonable: conversely, if any man (myself included) had particularly strong feelings toward using _his _name I would expect the same reasoning/explanation for this too as 'tradition' is not really an argument (although in our case it did partly come into play) 

I think it's only in cases where neither party have strong feelings either way, that discussion/explanation should be largely unnecessary.


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

But to ask for a reason why she wants to keep her own name implies there is a presumption that normal behaviour is to change it, i.e. keeping her name is unusual or aberrant (historically that is perfectly true). Why would you need a reason for her to keep hers? Would you be worried that she wouldn't want to take yours because you've had a sneaking suspicion that you have an 'orrible surname  and wanted to be re-assured?


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

Keeping your name shouldn't be about principles or even agreement - it should be about preference


----------



## foxylady (22 Aug 2007)

I have no intentions of changing my name when getting hitched and cant see for the life of me why any woman should have to explain her reasons to keep her name. I think this "tradition" is extremely outdated and I am also surprised at the amount of women who still follow this trend.


----------



## casiopea (22 Aug 2007)

I dont think what Caveat has written is unreasonable at all.  I do understand why (simple) reasons are important. Be it that you change your name or not you are a family.  Decisions you make effect the family and shouldnt be made totally alone.  Sometimes you'll want a reason for something he did when he might feel it doesnt require any reason (like why did he watch football all saturday afternoon why X or Y really needed to be done ;o) ).  

The fact is changing your name is a tradition not law.  Talking and sharing about why you are following tradition or not is a good thing (may even lay the ground work for future traditions you intend to break ;o) ).

Its ultimatums that are totally wrong, for that reason I hope for their sake that this is written in jest:



> My "wife to be" wanted to keep her name, so I told her fair enough but in that cae you can buy your onw engagement ring and pay for the bloody wedding, funly enough she decided to take my name, I really wish she had stuck to her principles, would have saved me a fortuine...


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

hmmm - the example you give is querying for an explanation after the fact, the question in hand is about the future perception of you as a person. Your name defines virtually every interaction you engage in in a public sphere, why is it not simply automatically reasonable (without any need of explanation or apology) that it is your name if you happen to be female and choosing to marry? I am not per se against the concept, I am more interested in the reason that the men seem to attach importance to the sacrifice, or at the very least a good reason why it isn't made.

I am not saying that Caveat isn't reasonable - I am just wondering at the root of his need to question his wife's choice.


----------



## Caveat (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> I am just wondering at the root of his need to question his wife's choice.


 
Why? when I've already made clear that _*I*_ would expect to have to provide a reason if _*I  *_were pushing my surname?!?!


----------



## casiopea (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> the example you give is querying for an explanation after the fact, the question in hand is about the future perception of you as a person.



Well no, I would always assume that this would be discussed well before the fact (ie before you're getting married, even engaged). 

I would also assume (maybe naively?) that all approaches would be discussed - ie Me taking his name, him taking my name, double barrelling etc.  

I would not see it that the woman would have to argue/debate/reason as to why she should (which is where I think you are coming from and I agree with you there).  I just think it should be discussed, reasons lobbed back and forth. I suppose here there is a very fine line between discussing/reasoning and defending/reasoning.  Im definitely talking about discussing not defending.


----------



## Caveat (22 Aug 2007)

foxylady said:


> cant see for the life of me why any woman should have to explain her reasons to keep her name.


 
Simple fairness? I feel men should explain *their* reasons should they want to use *their* name - why shouldn't women?? If it's up for discussion, let each party at least be clear in their own mind why they want a particular surname to be used!!


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

not quite the same thing Caveat

balance of effort falls on the wife. She is the one that will have to do all the running around if she decides to conform - why should she have to explain it? It is more reasonable to keep your own name, which matches your history workwise, education wise, etc.


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

I think cassiopeia my query is related to the "reason". discussion could be..
Man: Are you going to be Mrs Man
Woman: No, I will keep Woman
End of discussion


----------



## foxylady (22 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Simple fairness? I feel men should explain *their* reasons should they want to use *their* name - why shouldn't women?? If it's up for discussion, let each party at least be clear in their own mind why they want a particular surname to be used!!


 
When is a man ever asked to change his name when getting married????


----------



## casiopea (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> I think cassiopeia my query is related to the "reason". discussion could be..
> Man: Are you going to be Mrs Man
> Woman: No, I will keep Woman
> End of discussion



But discussions dont happen like that between partners.  I dont think I could ever have a discussion like that with someone Im marrying - someone I work with yes, not someone Im marrying.  This is more the type of discussion we'd have:

Man: Are you going to be Mrs Man
Woman: No, I will keep Ms. Woman, do you mind? (aside:  I love him I want to know if he minds)
Man: No not really, I think mum's going to be upset
Woman: Yeah, but, Im not marrying your mother
Man: Speaking of mothers I dont have to sit beside yours at the wedding do I?
Woman: No, I think youve got the priest on your other side.
Man: You're kidding? Your mother isnt free? Can I tell the priest I think God is as real as santa claus?

...and so on...that was the jist of our discussion.


----------



## Caveat (22 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Simple fairness? I feel men should explain *their* reasons should they want to use *their* name - why shouldn't women?? If it's up for discussion, let each party at least be clear in their own mind why they want a particular surname to be used!!


 
Use their name as opposed to the woman's name, obviously.



foxylady said:


> When is a man ever asked to change his name when getting married????


 
I assume this is a joke?


----------



## Caveat (22 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> But discussions dont happen like that between partners. I dont think I could ever have a discussion like that with someone Im marrying - someone I work with yes, not someone Im marrying. This is more the type of discussion we'd have:
> 
> Man: Are you going to be Mrs Man
> Woman: No, I will keep Ms. Woman, do you mind? (aside: I love him I want to know if he minds)
> ...


 
Well that at leasts sounds realistic.

Really, the fact that the topic is the name change (or not) associated with marriage is just incidental.  What I'm talking about is transparency and openness in a discussion from both sides.  Doesn't matter what the subject is - I can't think of any occasion when a viewpoint should not be explained or where doing something 'just because you can' (which seems to be the implication in some of the posts) is reasonable or mature.


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

> Use their name as opposed to the woman's name, obviously.


 
sorry Caveat - my response was to your prior post with the highlighted "I"


----------



## foxylady (22 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Use their name as opposed to the woman's name, obviously.
> 
> 
> Oops was having a blonde moment there for a minute.


----------



## foxylady (22 Aug 2007)

All jokes aside I still think in this day and age a woman should not have to explain her reasons for keeping her name.


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

> Man: Are you going to be Mrs Man
> Woman: No, I will keep Ms. Woman, do you mind? (aside: I love him I want to know if he minds)
> Man: No not really, I think mum's going to be upset
> Woman: Yeah, but, Im not marrying your mother
> ...


 
 You are right - the discussion I published there would be rather abrupt, functional and unloving, too much time writing code I fear. You will notice however that no reason was given in the above discussion either 

No-one though has yet responded with an actual reason beyond manners in respect of an anachronistic convention....


----------



## casiopea (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> You are right - the discussion I published there would be rather abrupt, functional and unloving, too much time writing code I fear. You will notice however that no reason was given in the above discussion either



Yes, I agree,  that was what I meant previously regarding discussing vs. defending.  I dont think in this day and age a woman should have to argue/defend why she isnt changing but I do think she should discuss it with her other half. It could end up more detailed than I have above there  but she shouldnt have to "justify" it.  I dont think Caveat meant much more by "reason" either (though thats his call).


----------



## mprsv1000 (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> mprsv1000 even seems to have resorted to what amounts to blackmail to ensure he got his way.



Come now Blackmail! that's a bit harsh, I'd gladly take her name if she gave me the bones of 25,000 (thats what the wedding all in is costing) It's not to unreasonable for a man to get something out of it.....besides a nagging wife.....(lets face it have you ever heard a woman complaining about a nagging husband?)


----------



## ragazza (22 Aug 2007)

foxylady said:


> All jokes aside I still think in this day and age a woman should not have to explain her reasons for keeping her name.


 
I agree with Casiopea.
I dont think a woman should have to _defend_ her reasons, but a simple explanation is reasonable.
For example, the reason could just be "I like my name and dont want to change it" or "I dont agree with old traditions".
But at least then your other half knows why, rather than being left in the dark.


----------



## Caveat (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> manners in respect of an anachronistic convention....


 
It's just manners as far as I can see. Full stop. In my book there is no deference to convention associated with it. With respect, I really think some posters can't see the wood for the trees here. 

At the risk of repeating myself; it's a discussion, discussions involve viewpoints/opinions and for the discussion to be reasonable and for each party to be fully informed/aware of the other's viewpoint(s), explanations or clarification is usually advisable. I'm not suggesting women should have to 'justify' their stance.

It has been said on more than one occasion on this thread that women should not have to explain a decision like this - presumably it would then follow that if a man were to say e.g. "Oh by the way, we are using my surname - end of discussion" then that should not require further clarification either? Equality and all that?

Do the posters in question apply this same 'no explanation required' approach with all discussions that come up with their partners?

And anyway - where is elefantfresh? - he's keeping low since he started this whole thing!!

Add: Hooray for Casiopea & Ragazza!!!


----------



## elefantfresh (22 Aug 2007)

> And anyway - where is elefantfresh? - he's keeping low since he started this whole thing!!


 
Trust me, i'm watching from the shadows...


----------



## my2leftfeet (22 Aug 2007)

I did not take my husbands surname when we got married [11 years ago]. I never even considered it.  Just remembering that when we got engaged the FIRST question my father asked me was what was my name going to be - I replied "the same as it always was". He was actually chuffed.
I suppose the main reason I didn't change my name was that I felt I would be losing part of my identity ... I would no longer be known by the name I had been known through my life to that point and people I would meet after I changed my name would never have known me under my original name. That was important to me.  Also, throughout my career I have been known by my maiden name and it would have made no sense to change it.
We have two children ... both have their fathers surname ... and to date there has never been an issue. My husband, while he probably would have preferred me to take his name, did not have an issue with me not taking it.  I don't mind at all being referred to as Mrs xxxx, and if I am making a hotel or restaurant booking for us I would always make it under his name.
For most of our couple friends ... the wife did change her name.  
Shortly after we got engaged met an older lady at a drinks party. the topic came up and she was absolutely shocked when she heard I would not be changing my name. She said "but people might think he wouldn't marry you"!  I think attitudes have moved on a bit since then!


----------



## foxylady (22 Aug 2007)

ragazza said:


> I agree with Casiopea.
> I dont think a woman should have to _defend_ her reasons, but a simple explanation is reasonable.
> For example, the reason could just be "I like my name and dont want to change it" or "I dont agree with old traditions".
> But at least then your other half knows why, rather than being left in the dark.


 
Thats fair enough I suppose.


----------



## Caveat (22 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> Yes, I agree, that was what I meant previously regarding discussing vs. defending. I dont think in this day and age a woman should have to argue/defend why she isnt changing but I do think she should discuss it with her other half. It could end up more detailed than I have above there but she shouldnt have to "justify" it. I dont think Caveat meant much more by "reason" either (though thats his call).


 
No I didn't mean anything 'loaded' by the word - (maybe it was a poor choice though)
& thanks for the vote of confidence!


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

mprsv1000 - are you not getting married too? In answer to your question, the nag wife was an invention of the comedian based on the women who had to ask for everything and got good at it.

ragazza, cassiopiea, caveat et al - you still haven't explained why, though you will accept your respective wives reasons, you need to know why. 
When the only public document identifying a woman was a birth/baptismal certificate up to the point at which she married and the change of name conferred social status, acceptablility and a safeguarded future, changing her name was the most logical thing to do.
When the woman now is in the position where none of the above conditions or advantages prevail and the disadvantages and effor involved are greater - why is there a presumption that it is something that needs to be explained?
I am not suggesting that politeness goes out the window - I just want to know why you all feel so strongly about it? Is it because you had never considered what a name change actually involves because as men you would have no reason to? Is it because you feel that your wife isn't committing to you if she doesn't? Is it because you feel that it is right and proper that a married woman should publicly declare herself as such (whereas a man has no similar convention to do so I hasten to add)? Why is your name important on your woman?


----------



## Caveat (22 Aug 2007)

foxylady said:


> Thats fair enough I suppose.


 
Did I not say much the same thing as Ragazza many posts ago???


----------



## foxylady (22 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Did I not same much the same thing as Ragazza many posts ago???


 
Apologies caveat you probably did but at this stage am just too tired too argue over it and surprised why no one agrees


----------



## casiopea (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> ragazza, cassiopiea - you still haven't explained why, though you will accept your respective wives reasons, you need to know why.



By the just to clarify, Im female (and married with maiden name).  So Im not really too sure what it is that I haven't clarified? 

I dont have the answers to your questions, if I was told to hazard a guess I would think some men just assume that you will change because it is tradition.  Its what they are used to (their mam did, their relations did, they know no one who hasnt).  Just like they assume you are going to wear white on your wedding day.  Its a tradition.  That doesnt mean for any stretch of the imagination I think a woman should if she doesnt want to.  I think the right attitude for both men and women to have on this is - each to their own.


----------



## Caveat (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> Why is your name important on your woman?


 
For me, it's not - as I have already stated.


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

casiopea - thought that was an unusual name for a male - apologies I will pay more attention to how I direct questions in future. I think since I had directed my query at the men then it wouldn't be reasonable to ask you for an answer in that regard. Thank you for answering though. I think you are probably correct "tradition" is frequently cited as a reason but if you chose to wear a cream gown, or have a peach bolero or decided that a delicate lilac was your preference for a gown I think it would raise fewer eyebrows or questions from your other half and perhaps wouldn't even be something he would feel the need to discuss with you. It would be perfectly acceptable that you wanted to. From his perspective it is less likely that he feels it in anyway reflects or impinges on him, name change though - some posters have expressed misgivings even hostility towards a woman not changing her name, where a man has said he hasn't any or very few he has qualified it by saying he would want to know the reason. I am just reflecting the question back to them - what reason do they have for needing a reason. You say "tradition", but the weight of tradition seems to lie heavier with a name change than with a choice of (potentially rather expensive) dress, tradition isn't reason it is refuge from change.

Caveat and others - sorry, the question was posed in a stream. I did not mean to imply that you hold any such views - rather that you haven't said why it is important to be told why.


----------



## ragazza (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> ragazza, cassiopiea, caveat et al - you still haven't explained why, though you will accept your respective wives reasons, you need to know why.


 
So-crates, I'm female, and would never change my name on marriage.
But if my future husband wanted to know why I wouldnt change my name, I'd give him a reason, just so that he knows and isn't left wondering. I would take the question as idle curiosity on his part, and maybe an effort to get to know me better and what makes me tick.
I wouldn't expect to have to defend the decision, just simply explain it.


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

ouch - sorry ragazza - I really outdid myself with that one.


----------



## MrMan (22 Aug 2007)

I think caveat has defended his point enough really I don't see how his argument can be so continually missed by our lady friends. First they got the vote and now they want to keep their names! I do think some women will argue any point if they feel there is a feminist stance to be taken even whereby such a stance is not needed nor wanted. Yes we live with tradition and many traditions have faded, I don't know why I would want to share my surname only that it feels right and I would want to prolong the family name and all that. I still hold open doors, offer my seat to women etc purely cause its (mannerly) and just something that has always been thought as right.


----------



## so-crates (22 Aug 2007)

I am not trying to attack Caveat, although I did at one point do so inadvertently (for which I apologised). I have no feminist agenda - just a native curiosity why an anachronistic and incovenient practice (and I clearly stated the reasons why this is so) is presumed by some men to be perfectly acceptable. I think I said that I wasn't looking at it from the perspective of passing the name to subsequent generations, purely between spouses. I think you have just answered it for you, to you it "feels right". Don't confuse a traditional courtesy with a traditional convention. One was always a choice, the other was always an obligation


----------



## dodo (22 Aug 2007)

My wife kept her maiden name as is her right, there was never an issue as we love each other. We do have children and they have my name which again is no big deal, I also think a bridesmaid should speak on behalf of the bride on her wedding day.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Aug 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



mf1 said:


> I'm more surprised these days at any woman choosing to change her surname on marriage.


Me too - and the amount of agonizing that goes on about this at an individual and collective level is also quite surprising in my opinion.


----------



## zag (22 Aug 2007)

so-crates - your last post asks why the name change "is presumed by some men to be perfectly acceptable", but why are you interested in why "some men" find it perfectly acceptable and not in why "some people" find it acceptable ?

As has been pointed out, it is a tradition and people find comfort and consistency in tradition.  That doesn't make it rational or logical.

You may as well ask why "some women" seem to want to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort in getting their wedding day supposedly perfect for their guests, when in fact - if asked - many of their guests would spend the effort making the day perfect for her.  It's tradition.  Some people go for it, some don't.

z


----------



## purpeller (23 Aug 2007)

dodo said:


> I also think a bridesmaid should speak on behalf of the bride on her wedding day.



Why can't the bride speak for herself?
If I was at a wedding and bride didn't at the very least get up and thank all the guests for coming, I would think it very old-fashioned and a little rude!


----------



## casiopea (23 Aug 2007)

purpeller said:


> If I was at a wedding and bride didn't at the very least get up and thank all the guests for coming, I would think it very old-fashioned and a little rude!



I think thats a bit harsh, many brides dont give speeches.  Usually someone (groom/bestman) gets up and does that.  Personally I think speeches at these events are too long and the fewer people that get up the better.


----------



## Trafford (29 Aug 2007)

so-crates said:


> hmmm - the example you give is querying for an explanation after the fact, the question in hand is about the future perception of you as a person. *Your name defines virtually every interaction you engage in in a public sphere, why is it not simply automatically reasonable (without any need of explanation or apology) that it is your name if you happen to be female and choosing to marry?* I am not per se against the concept, I am more interested in the reason that the men seem to attach importance to the sacrifice, or at the very least a good reason why it isn't made.
> 
> I am not saying that Caveat isn't reasonable - I am just wondering at the root of his need to question his wife's choice.


 
I actually think the total opposite to this. To me a name is just a label. I will always be who I am and of the family I am from regardless of what others call me. It's like just because you move abroad doesn't change your nationality or doesn't change who you are. I would change the name, and get on with my life if it were me. I'll still be me.


----------



## noilh (1 Sep 2007)

If a woman used both her own surname and her husband's to make a double barrell name, then if her daughters did the same on marriage they would end up with triple barrel names and if that went on through the generations someone  could end up with a mighty long name!!     unless of course they dropped some surnames along the way which might offend the family whose name was dropped. 
  It just gets too complicated.  I know someone who was sneered at by co-workers  for having a double-barrel name by the way. How about inventing a totally new surname on marriage for people who don't feel they want to choose.


----------



## dodo (1 Sep 2007)

purpeller said:


> Why can't the bride speak for herself?
> If I was at a wedding and bride didn't at the very least get up and thank all the guests for coming, I would think it very old-fashioned and a little rude!


You missed the point of course the bride should speak just like the groom, but it is rare a bride's maid talk's at a wedding but the best man always does,


----------



## dodo (1 Sep 2007)

noilheart said:


> If a woman used both her own surname and her husband's to make a double barrell name, then if her daughters did the same on marriage they would end up with triple barrel names and if that went on through the generations someone  could end up with a mighty long name!!     unless of course they dropped some surnames along the way which might offend the family whose name was dropped.
> It just gets too complicated.  I know someone who was sneered at by co-workers  for having a double-barrel name by the way. How about inventing a totally new surname on marriage for people who don't feel they want to choose.


In some Country's they make one name from the 2 names, someone called ryan and another called murphy they would be called Muran for eg


----------



## SarahMc (2 Sep 2007)

Lots of talk on here about how its traditional to take the man's name upon marriage.

Actually NO.  Thats an imported English custom.  In Ireland, women kept their own name upon marrying (handy as they could divorce after one year).

Children of the union however, had the father's name.


----------



## Buddyboy (4 Sep 2007)

A little late in the discussion, but my wife didn't take my name, nor did I expect her to.

Christmas cards from my family are always addressed to myself and her with both our names, but cards from her family are addressed to "Mr. & Mrs. B. Buddyboy", even though they know she hasn't changed her name. 

I told her that if it bothers her, then she should write "Not known at this address" and return them to sender. But she is too nice for that. 
They are very traditional, so we let it slide. Although it bothers me more than her, as I feel that she doesn't even get an initial!

On occasion I have been called by her surname. If she booked a hotel or meal or delivery, she would have done so in her name. When we arrive I would have asked for the reservtion under "wifes_maden_name". 
Again, not something that bothers us.

So in some ways we are both sharing our surnames. 

We did say that if there were kids, then they could have her surname as I come from a family of boys, whereas she comes from a family of girls.  So it would be something her father would like, to have the family name continued on. My parents aren't too fussed, and already have grandchildren with their surname.


----------



## Purple (4 Sep 2007)

As my wife is my chattel it follows that she took my name... 
Oh wait, no, she kept her own name and she never does what I ask her (we don’t even try the telling her bit)…. Jasus, how the hell did I let that happen?!  
But I'm happy, that's the main thing.. at least she tells my that I'm happy anyway.


I'm not reading any more of this thread!


----------



## ci1 (7 Sep 2007)

This sounds very sappy but if I was getting married and planned on having children I would change my name.  

Years ago I was all gung-ho for keeping my own but I don't think I'd like to have a different surname to my kids, it wouldn't bother me so much now changing my name once I'm happy!!  Names don't affect marraiges or unions or how people feel about each other...well they shouldn't anyway.

I know my sister wouldn't change hers jsut to annoy her mother in law 
she was marrying his only son and his mother told her she had to .... big mistake.

as for speechs, yes brides or bridesmaids should speak.
most weddings I have been at the best mans speech is about the groom and what they've gotten up to over the years, one wedding had a photo display of the groom throughout the years and while it was a good laugh it was all about him and not her.
I know its tradition but I'm all for change.


----------



## Happy Girl (13 Sep 2007)

*Re: Getting married - wive keeping maiden name*



Vanilla said:


> Mind you if his surname is horrible then she should just stick with hers.


 
Dont think elefantfresh horrible works too well here!!!!! Isn't that a very unusual surname.


----------



## elefantfresh (14 Sep 2007)

No, my surname definitely is not Horrible


----------



## ClubMan (14 Sep 2007)

elefantfresh said:


> No, my surname definitely is not Horrible


And I always thought that this was you!


----------



## elefantfresh (18 Sep 2007)

That could be me after midnight on a Fri or Sat night!


----------

