Getting married - wife keeping maiden name

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
Click to expand...

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 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...

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????
Click to expand...

I assume this is a joke?
 

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

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....
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

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).
 
so-crates said:
mprsv1000 even seems to have resorted to what amounts to blackmail to ensure he got his way.
Click to expand...

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?)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
so-crates said:
manners in respect of an anachronistic convention....
Click to expand...

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!!!
 
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!
 

Thats fair enough I suppose.
 

No I didn't mean anything 'loaded' by the word - (maybe it was a poor choice though)
& thanks for the vote of confidence!
 
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?
 
Last edited:
so-crates said:
ragazza, cassiopiea - you still haven't explained why, though you will accept your respective wives reasons, you need to know why.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register