Getting married - wife keeping maiden name

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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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

 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
foxylady said:
cant see for the life of me why any woman should have to explain her reasons to keep her name.
Click to expand...

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!!
 
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.
 
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
 
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!!
Click to expand...

When is a man ever asked to change his name when getting married????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register