Whats in a name

I didn't change my name when I married. Never even considered it. I already had a perfectly good name.

I belive I have just as much right to my father's name as my brother.

I feel exactly the same as Trillian on this. (Although I would quite like not to be related to my sister sometimes!)

Don't be silly Rinabean - having a different suranme doesn't mean you are not "not realted to your sister".

I would just want to have the same name as my children and partner - the family that I created - and to be the Somethings. I want Christmas cards to be addressed to the Thingy family.

If I were having a civil partnership I would still want DW, myself, and our children to have the same name.

fluffles - double-barrelling comes with its own set of problems, just because you have to choose which of your two surnames to pass down. I don't think that there's anything intrinsically wrong with children having their father's name in the same way that I think a grown woman changing her name is wrong. I plan to double-barrel my children's surnames because I think that overall it has the least drawbacks.

I've just thought of another reason "family names" are stupid. It means that if you change your name and your sister changes her name, apart from not being related to one set of grandparents ever, now you're not related to your parents or your sister! How is that anything to do with families? At least your sister is always your sister. Your husband might not always be your husband. It's like having his name tattoed on you. Yes, you could laser it off if you split up, but that will be a hassle so why not just not do such a foolish thing in the first place?

I think the thing that sticks out to me is that your surname is your formal or professional names. A lot of women nowadays keep their surname and say it's just because of their career. So I think people pushing surname-change onto women obviously believe that women can't have a meaningful professional life.

It makes sense to have either your mother's or your father's name because you actually are an extension of them. You are their offspring. But to make a woman an extension of her husband - especially in the case of addressing a couple as Mr and Mrs Hisname Surname, which is the "proper" way - is wrong and nonsensical. It's interesting how many women don't like to be referred to by their husband's first name or get offended by being asked for the "head of the household" when by changing their name they are saying that that's how they want things to be. But I guess it suits them to change the things that annoy them the most and then say people who want actual equality for women are too extreme. :/

This is something that really winds me up and I need to stop rambling now.

I don't know Poolet. This was 20 years ago when it was just beginning to come in, changing back to your maiden name after divorce. Recently, all the women i know who got divorced, returned to their maiden name. One friend of mine, who isn't even remotely feminist, did, so I thought maybe that was the norm now. I don't know, would be interested to.

"I did once know a woman who got divorced but kept her married name."

HerBeX I'll be keeping my married name when I'm divorced. Isn't that what most women do?

To be honest, it's easier to keep it than to change it back to my 'maiden' name and it's a lot easier to spell

The problem with double-barrelling, is what do you do when you want to marry someone who is also double barrelled?

Quadruple barrel?

I guess people jsut drop one each of the surnames and then re-double barrel, like in Spain?

I didn't change my name when I got married, I didn't see why and DH supported this.

When I was expecting DS I wanted us all to have the same name. We all now have DH's surname simply because it is a simple, traditional, easy to spell English surname rather than my voweltatsic, constantly mispelt, Gaelic one.

However, I am still Dr MaidenName at work. I am not so sure I would have changed to Mrs Marriedname if I could not legitimitley use Dr MaidenName in some circumstances.

rina - "All this talk of "having a family name" is nonsense. You do have a family name. You've taken at least part of your surname from your parents, right? So your name represents your first family, just like your husband's represents his."

So what do you do with your own children? do you always double-barrel?

I have not taken my DH's name but i may when we have children, if they have his. we could double-barrel i suppose but it sounds awful so it would be a triumph of principle over sense

I did once know a woman who got divorced but kept her married name.

"It's the only thing the fucker ever gave me" was her reason.

It doesn't matter if your name is your father's. If it's the name you were given, it's yours too now. People don't tend to say that grooms should change their names on marriage because it's 'only their father's name'. It's like noses. I have my dad's nose, but it's still my nose too! I'm not going to get plastic surgery to get a nose like my partner's, or like my mother's for that matter! I already have a perfectly good nose, and like everyone, I have to inheirit my nose from somewhere. The same goes for surnames.

Anyway, I don't think a woman should take her husband's name. It's supporting the patriarchy. If we want to believe that families come in many shapes and don't have to be headed by a man then we shouldn't orient our own families that way. How can we say the world shouldn't be run by men if we symbolically let men run our personal worlds?

All this talk of "having a family name" is nonsense. You do have a family name. You've taken at least part of your surname from your parents, right? So your name represents your first family, just like your husband's represents his. To take my husband's name would mean that his parents were my family but mine weren't. I don't believe in allowing families to become male-dominated in this way.

should have been or its heritage.

Yes, because it felt wrong for him, but was fine for you to do FB, because good old 'tradition' is on his side.

TBH I think the fact that my surname is my father's surname (it's a bit more complicated than that, but for the sake of argument, say it's his surname) is irrelevant to my choice whether to change my name or not. It's my name now and I see it as either:

a) I keep my name, and then have at least the option of passing name onto my children

or

b) I take future husband's name, and abandon all claim to pass on my name to future children.

After all, it's my father's name, but for future DDs it will be their MOTHER's name, and if I had given it up on marriage, then they would be looking at receiving their father's, and so the cycle would continue.

Basically, you can't change the past of a name of it's heritage, but you can change it's future IYSWIM

TA - I agree in a sense. I didn't particularly like my surname, but I liked the fact it had an interesting history. I don't particularly like DH's surname either. I'm more irritated that he woulnd't change his because it would feel wrong - it was the wrong reason IMO.

i haven't taken my husband's name but i think i might when we have children.

but in the meantime i've so far had NO problems at all. i even paid a check into the bank this week that was made out to myfirstname husbandssurname and just showed my wedding certificate said i wasn't taking that name and nobody batted an eyelid.

I didn't know that about Malcolm X.

Go Malcolm. I like him even more now.

I should add, as I've said before on MN, I have a friend who took the first two letters of her surname, first two letters of his, added 'us' to signify union and made a whole new surname. If DH and I had done that our surname would be Pinuus.

Oddly we decided against this option

It isn't not liberated. Obviously, it'[s only not particularly liberated to hold on to your father's (and grandfather's and great grandfather's etc. name)

Unless you're in Iceland of course. Where it's not necessarily the name of your male ancestors that counts.

Although I'm not sure, I think people changed their names probably more frequently in the past - to pay a compliment to a relative they were hoping to inherit for example, or to thank the person who had left them a legacy. I think Florence Nightingale's father changed the family name when a female relative demanded he did if he wanted to be the chief beneficiary of her will.

Oh, and I like DP better than I like the previous bestowers of my current surname :o

I think "what's in a name" is exactly right. I didn't change my name because it was my name so why would I - but that was my choice. Other women I know who are just as feminist did change their name, because, in their words, they felt comfortable enough in their identity not to need to tie it to a particular name.

Both valid points of view, I don't think their implication is that I am not secure enough in my identity to change my name.

The family issue again - perfectly understandable point of view. For me, as my mum remarried when I was 7, surname has never been an issue in terms of defining family.

People make their own choices. As with many issues, I wish it was as acceptable for a man to take his wife's surname as vice versa (and neither) - that seems to me to be the heart of feminism.

I don't feel attached to my surname. It is my stepdad's surname, and I would be perfectly happy to take DP's surname if we married. It would be nice to have a family name, in my opinion.

I would like it if couples chose whichever name sounded nicest, rather than automatically taking the man' surname, but currently society (the banks, passports, people's opinions, etc) make it easier for the woman to change her name.

I know of a couple who both changed their name upon getting married, but only because they didn't want to inflict the name Glasscock on their children :o

If your mother and father were enlightened and created a new surname when they married, either by double-barrelling or otherwise, how is it not liberated to keep that name yourself?