to think this isn't the point of marriage?

[Objection]

OH found out today that when/if we got married, I would want to keep my surname.
I like my surname, its unusual and, unlike many people, I chose it.
I became estranged from my father several years ago and changed my name from his to my mother's maiden name. I'm close to that side of the family and it helped me feel even more connected to them.
I also have very mild feminist views on the matter which, tbh, are not nearly as much as an influence, but they are there.
OH's name is fine. I have no opinion on it, its just a surname. Only he, his mother and his father have it.
I have no issue with any children taking his family name though I'd prefer they had mine but personally would rather be MrsMe, rather than MrsOH.

I asks OH jokingly today "so when are you going to marry me?" (he's always been really pro-marriage and its something he wanted to do.
And he replied "well, there's no point getting married now, is there?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well there's no point if you're not going to take my name."

I tried to explain the whole life-long commitment, declaration of love in front of friends and family not to mention the legal benefits and he just shrugged it off. He's very offended that I want to keep my name. (We were together when I "broke up" with my Dad).

AIBU to think that names aren't the point of marriage and also to feel quite offended?

I think comments along the lines of what a twat the ops oh is and how he wants to 'own her' are really unfair.

He's disappointed and is sulking. Not the most adult behaviour but it is understandable.

Oh would have been devastated if I didn't take his name or allow the dc's to have his name. His surname means a lot to him for various reasons. We agree on the fact that we wanted us all to share a name, and because he felt more strongly about his than I did about mine, we chose his.

That doesn't mean he wanted a possession not a wife

It's amazing the meltdowns some men have when their partner tells them they have no intention of changing their name.

Grow up little boy!

Pattinson and Stewart - I'd go with Pattiwart.

Honestly, the only way to resolve this is to talk to him about it. There are other options apart from keeping your name, but I don't think you should go against your principles on this.

If I didn't take my husband surname he would have been upset about it, as we'd spoken about it, but it was of course totally my choice. I considered keeping my maiden name but it wasn't something I felt particularly strong about.

I think it's obvious from your posts that you are very possessive of your name. It seems like you don't want his name associated with you or your children at all, given you stated you'd prefer they take your name. It's a little offensive when you really think about it from his point of view. Like him and his name aren't good enough (silly thinking or not).

I would ask him though why it's important to him that you change your name. If his only answer is "cause that's how it's done" explain to him that's not how it's ALWAYS done and you don't have to do things the way everyone else does. If he says "because it's important to me" then you've got a problem. No-one wins when both feel strongly about something.

Of course you are not being unreasonable :)

Dh' s family address thing to me as Mrs 'h' s first name h' s surname'
I think that makes me Mrs
Even he thinks it odd
Oh and we had two sons too so they can carry on their Neanderthal ways for another generation over my dead body

caruthers I don't think taking another persons name is wrong at all. I think it's wrong when one person is bullied into changing something they don't want because someone gets the pet lip on.

I think that viewing it as possessive hasn't looked deeper into why the op changed her name in the first place
Fwiw op, I had my biological fathers name too, we have been estranged for years, he hasn't been a father. When I married I disassociated with hat name and took my husband's, but I married very young. If I had if waited I would gave changed to y mum's maiden name too

As others have said, even in parts of the UK, in past centuries it was not automatically the norm for women to take their husband's name on marriage. So there IS traditional flexibility. In Scotland, for example, women were known as 'Mary xxx, wife of John yyy'. (That's what I call myself.) In the Middle Ages in England, there was a legal fiction - called 'femme sole' (single woman) - which allowed married women to trade, often under their maiden name, without making their husband liable for their debts (or profits).
Children usually took their father's name. But, in Scotland, it was quite common to give the first-born son the mother's surname as a first or second name, in recognition of her identity and - I think this is important - the link between the two families.

www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/relationships_w/relationships_living_together_marriage_and_civil_partnership_e/living_together_and_marriage_legal_differences.htm Here's a handy guide to the point of marriage, legally, just in case you need to guide him back on track in the life-changing aspects of the whole thing.

Can he explain why the importance of your existing names is at different ends of the spectrum for each of you?

Sorry, you mentioned the legal benefits in your op.

I know a man who lost a very beautiful, intelligent and nice fiancée because of this. She was also Scandinavian, and it was absolutely her tradition to keep her own surname on marriage. He was not prepared to compromise on this, and she was not prepared to be told what name she had to have, so they split up. She is now married to a much nicer man. His loss. I really admire her and I think she ended up married to a much more well adjusted and respectful individual as a result.

YANBU at all. I didn't change my surname because I didn't (and still don't) see the point.

Your DP's comment that there is no point getting married if you aren't going to change your surname is quite ignorant. Does he not realise that in many countries women don't change their surnames on marriage?

If he thinks it important that you both have the same name, he should change his name to yours.

I have very little respect for any man who sulked or bullied their OH to take their name. It does smack of thinking they there name is more important than the woman's.

Your name is and should be as important to you OP as much as his name is to him.

Those saying his surname is important to the man and it is important to him his kids have that name; don't you think her surname is important to a woman and that it might be important to her for her kids to have her name?

I changed my name for three reasons, my maiden name was a bit odd and had caused me enough ridivule; dh said he wouldn't wear a wedding ring (important to me) if I didn't change my name (important to him) and his mum had already booked us flights as mr & mrs newname.

My new name sounds much nicer than old name. Glad I did it but know plenty of people who haven't.

I know a couple who squished their names together, like the example you gave. I like the idea. Our names didn't blend, though. I use my maiden name for work and my married name for everything else.

KeepingUpAnon - how is your situation similar to the OP's?

You didin't mind giving up your surname. The OP does. Should her partner just go on sulking until she gives in...?

'He's not a bellend' - he is if he really thinks like this. He just is.

I didn't change my name when I married. It was a feminist thing and about losing a connection to my family. Bloody handy when he buggered off over the horizon when DS was a baby as it saved a lot of paperwork!

I don't know, for me a big part of marriage was us all having the same name but I don't think it needs to automatically be the man's name. I think it should be more of an open discussion - whose name should we use, should we change it, should we double barrel it. It's the individual family's decision of course but I wouldn't want to have a different name to my husband and/or children and I don't see why he's not allowed to have that opinion if he's a man.

It is a bit of a "male privilege" thing for him to assume that the family name will be his name, though, and although I took my husband's name it was a huge massive culture shock in practice.

Well the op is talking about 'today'. An initial sulky reaction IS understandable. If he's still adamant that there's no point in marriage if she won't change her name once he's calmed down then yes, he's a bellend.

But that may not be the case.

I personally wouldn't be very interested in someone who thought that women should change their surname to the man's on marriage. It shows a lack of free thought.

DH was quite upset about it.

He got over it ;)

I wanted to keep my own name when we married - it's my name. Dh had no issue with this at all. (I've been quite surprised at how old fashioned many of our peers are about it all though)

FIL on the other hand hit the roof - apparently I invalidated the whole marriage by signing the register in my own name leading to a lot of disparaging comments referring to to dh's partner (oh how cutting of you FIL - oh no wait a minute, we don't really give a stuff what you think you silly old misogynist ) He then rather contradicted himself by suggesting dh needed to get his wife under control

The dcs after much discussion have dh's name and I did ask one of them recently whether it bothered him that my name is different - he looked totally bemused at the question