Adam Ramsay Peaty

[Mrsnothingthanks]

And why not? Why is it still seen as so "out there" that a man should double-barrel upon marriage? Nobody would pass one comment if his wife had changed her name to Holly Peaty.
My husband and I both db'd upon marriage. Titles remain unchanged.
It's 2025 ffs!! Stop with the misogyny!

She's said very clearly that she wanted to give the baby both names, but he didn't want her to. He may not have physically forced her to, but there was obviously some degree of coercion there (in as much as he managed to get her to make a big decision according to his wishes not hers)

And now he doesn't even have the same name as his child anyway, and it turns out he has nothing against double barrelled names after all. That's incredibly hurtful.

@ChelseaBagger He has still retained the Peaty? And his son is a Peaty, no? So not fully removed at all.
And if she was coerced, yet another reason why both men and women should be rallying against the patriarchal tradition of woman-only name changing.

Rather than the ex having been forced or abused into not using her surname, I think it’s more a case of- she expressed a wish to use her surname/double barrel. He responded by saying he didn’t want to double barrel and that he felt it was important for the child to have only his surname. Although it’s not what she originally wanted, because it was important to him, she agreed and was happy with it at the time (not forced, not coerced and yes, her choice). But then a few years later he’s somehow now totally fine with double barrelled names. That’s where the hypocrisy comes in.

But if he's happy that "Peaty" and "Ramsey Peaty" are close enough surnames for him and his son, then why wasn't he happy with "Peaty" and "Munroe Peaty"? Especially when that was what the mother of the child wanted!

She made a significant sacrifice purely to honour his wishes, presumably because he made out that it was a big deal to him, and now it turns out that it wasn't a big deal to him at all. (And it clearly is still a big deal to her, because she's talking about it!)

Well why would be reported as saying it was hypocritical of him if he didn’t disagree to their child carrying both their names? Yes legally it’s her right - but evidently she for whatever reason, we obvs will never know - did not feel she could. I’m not suggesting abuse - merely surmising she maybe didn’t want him to stop being as actively involved in parenting him & wanted to keep him on board - who knows. Their relationship dynamics are unknown. The point is she didn’t & his dissent is reported as being the reason. Otherwise she wld’nt have said it & it got picked up by the press. Again I’m not saying she doesn’t legally have the right.

Exactly this!

Presumably all of your male relatives have also got rid of the name at the soonest opportunity.

@Bernadinetta Perhaps she should have stood her ground? No way was our daughter being called my husband's last name only!! Not a chance. He was fully supportive of this and we all db'd.

No but they could have chosen to if they so wished.

Well maybe that makes me not a feminist then because I live my life how I choose to.

@pinkpony88 Perhaps you're not, agreed.

Or maybe just a different flavour of feminist.

@SabrinaThwaite Possibly. I'm personally not in the "feminism but only when it suits me" group but absolutely each to their own 😀

You obviously have quite strident views on picking surnames when marrying as being a feminist statement and that’s your hill to die on.

I’ve spent my entire working career proving that a woman can do the job, so obsessing about surnames is so far down my list of feminist issues to be concerned about that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at your ‘feminism but only when it suits me’ line.

Why is his ex even getting involved? It was 5 years ago and they were never married so it's possible he has changed his mind or would've felt differently if they were married like he is now. She also can't have felt that strongly about it because it was ultimately her decision in the end.

dancing at the Pink Pony Club?

lol I chose my name before I realised about the song but hey ho 😂

@SabrinaThwaite The surname issue is a very important part of feminism. For obvious reasons.

It’s an element but IMO it’s a tiny part of feminism. I can think of waaay more important things when it comes to female equality.

@SabrinaThwaite Are you married yourself? If so, did you change your name and title? I didn't and it may only be a "small" step in your opinion, but absolutely no way I was bowing down to the patriarchy on this one. Same reason as to why my dad didn't give me away etc.

The thing you use every single day isn’t important?

Choosing to identify yourself in relation to someone other than your own bloodline isn’t important?

Why do so many women change their names when they divorce if names aren’t important?

They’re symbolic, and used every single day. But they don’t matter?

What does matter? Because you don’t have to go very far on this site to realise that the women that change their names tend to be the ones going part time/giving up work when children come along and complaining about how useless their DHs are. And then getting utterly shafted when the useless DH cheats on them and leaves them with almost nothing. Because they believe the “romance” of changing their entire identity will mean it all lasts forever. And they lose themselves in it.

Yes, married for a long time.

Yes, I did take DH’s surname.

No, my name does not define me. Women are not the chattels of their fathers or husbands and have not been for over a century in the UK.

I don’t give a flying fuck if you think changing a surname makes you a lesser person, it made zero difference to me. I was not attached to the name I inherited from my father, it’s just a name (which meant ‘son of male person’, so hardly appropriate anyway).

My bloodline is my bloodline, that’s not defined by a single name either, there’s dozens of different surnames in my bloodline, how can you be defined by a single one?

Taking your husband’s name might be an anachronism, but then so is getting married in church or wearing a big white wedding dress (neither of which I did).

I’ve lived my life by doing things that women weren’t expected to do, worked fucking hard to prove myself and dealt with the men that didn’t think I should be there. I’d like to think that I changed a few minds and made it a bit easier for the women that came after me.

Women are still so massively disadvantaged when it comes to employment opportunities, maternity care, health research, pension provision, MVAWG - I could go on.

So no, names come pretty low on my list of priorities.

@SabrinaThwaite I didn't get married in a church either (why would I as a non-Christian?) and definitely didn't wear a big white dress! We had 15 guests in total and it was perfect.
But I still don't understand your decision re name changing tbh. If you believe iother things are far more "big ticket" and have fought for them, why not do something you believe to be so "low key"? Why take your husband's name?

Why are we, in the name of feminism, questioning what women are doing and demanding they objectively prove the worth of things which are subjective? Nuts.

Because it wasn’t of any particular significance to me? I liked his surname more than mine? Neither of us own each other? My father’s surname was just one of dozens, probably hundreds, in my family tree? What about my morhers’s line?

Like I said, women haven’t been chattels for a century and there are way more important things to consider than names.

I am not my name.