Taking husbands name

[luelle]

I've just read a twitter thread regarding women taking their husbands surname when they marry, and out of the hundreds of replies I skim read I would say a good 90% of the replies are people absolutely dead against it. Countless posts saying that it's ridiculous in this day and age, it's outdated and degrading, no women should be treated like property to be passed about. That its awful when women would throw away their family name without a second thought etc.. I'm just shocked, I never realised it had become such a negative thing in so many peoples eyes!

I am aware of the history behind taking surnames and yes it was to do with ownership from father to husband, but surely in this day and age we have moved past all that enough for it to simply just be a nice thing you do when you get married, if you want to?

I think it's become so common now for women to keep their maiden names, and I don't think women are really expected to take their last name anymore. It is a choice and it's great that women are free to make these choices - but I just found it quite sad that this thread had so many people bashing people that do choose to take their husbands name?

I plan to take my DPs name if we get married, just because I'd like to. In my mind, it's an exciting part of marriage and a new chapter. I'm still me, I'm still part of my family, I still have my family history. AIBU to be a little sad that I could actually be looked at negatively for doing so? Or have times just changed that much?

manic in Holland women often revert to their birth name when they become widowed, lending even greater weight to the idea that you are defined by the man in your life.

Are we? How strange of you to assume so. I'm just refuting your idiotic comments and you keep coming back with more of them.

Well given the time stamps on the posts I think it's pretty safe to assume. It's really not me making idiotic comments.

No, you're not getting it. You said that if you choose to keep your own name as an adult that is just the same kind of choice as changing it on marriage.

It is categorically not, but if you don't know that there is no explaining such an obvious thing to you.

Well your explanation has included demonstrably false claims that name changing inevitably has a cost, pretence that fees for new passports and driving licences are somehow only an issue when people haven't just got married, and a bizarre invocation of people who live outside the UK and thus will overwhelmingly not need to know anything about our name changing laws. So it's not a great shock that you've been met with a chorus of disagreement.

Though I have actually agreed with you that in the past this information used to be much less accessible than it is now, and indeed given an example. You're on much stronger ground with that than you are with pretending that 18 year olds not being able to use google is a realistic current possibility. There definitely is a valid point to be made about societal expectations and the impact this has on free choice, hence for example women thinking they have to change their names.

So, still not getting it then. It's ok, no shame in not understanding.

'BTW, thanks for calling the rather large number of non UK people who use this site "a bizarre invocation". Your britcentrism is showing there.

It's a Brit-centric thread NFATR. That's literally what it is. This is incredibly, phenomenally obvious: it's about UK law, custom and history. The very concept of this thread couldn't exist in certain cultures. You will not conflate criticism of you for a silly and desperate attempt to use non-UK residents to prop up a fundamentally flawed argument that isn't relevant to them with criticism of them.

Still though, keep telling us how the cost of changing your passport when you're not married is more significant than the cost of changing it when you are. I'm enjoying the laugh.

You want to believe it's difficult/costly/people can't use google. From my experience it's not. The second one I did I wasn't even in the UK, I live elsewhere in Europe. It still wasn't difficult.
You've obviously got a bee in your bonnet about this and are going to believe what you want to believe and I can't be arsed debating it with someone so blinkered, so crack on.

Women should do whatever they feel is right for them
Personally, I wouldn't take a partners name if I married again. I wish I had kept my maiden name and registered my children in my name too.
I know women who have married, divorced and remarried, some more than twice and have changed their name to their husbands each time. They have children with different surnames.
I don't see the point in all the name changing and all your children having different names.

Becoming double barrelled was easy, the biggest issue is people struggle to spell it. It's easy to spell but it has 16 characters including the hyphen which throws people. It's also surprising the number of people who don't know what a hyphen is, I've had , _ ' all thrown in the middle.

Some people are slightly sniffy about going double barrelled (France introduced a rule that new double barrelled names had to have 2 hyphens but had to drop it because IT systems couldn't cope). People that get sniffy are generally those with a chip on their shoulder already so are quite easy to ignore.

Can I ask those that feel taking a husband's name is conforming a tradition that has its roots in a man's ownership of his wife, do you also refuse to wear an engagement ring? It originally had a key rather than a stone and showed that a woman belonged to her husband. Not goading but if I were in that position I'd want the big diamond. I suggested to my wife that she get me an engagement Rolex but she thought I was joking. I see my wedding ring as saying I "belong" to my wife.

Setting aside the obviously ludicrous pretences that changing your name before marriage is more expensive or practically difficult than changing it on marriage, and that people who don't like in the UK and have never had any intention of coming here not being intimately familiar with our laws is of any relevance at all, there is a valid point to be made about societal expectations and lack of information for people 20 years + ago. It's unfortunately being lost amidst claims that all adults have driving licences and passports they need to change. So anyone not being able to pick the nugget of sense from the nonsense could be forgiven.

But as I said several posts ago now, before this got batshit, it is worthy of discussion. And more sensible discussion than it has so far enjoyed.

NC I didn’t get engaged before I married and I don’t understand the relevance of engagements in modern times so there’d be no ring on my finger if I ever did it again. I also wouldn’t have a wedding ring. The only reason I’d get married again is if it made better financial sense for both me and my partner than being unmarried.

You want to believe it's difficult/costly/people can't use google. From my experience it's not

No of course I don't you loon. Read it properly. The assertion made was that the pp made a choice to stay with her name on her 18th birthday that is comparable to changing her name on marriage.

I merely pointed out the many obvious reasons that this is not true, such as the person not knowing that they could (the answer to this was "google", idiotically), not knowing how, not knowing if their were costs involved, blah blah blah.

All of which you somehow seem to think means that I said someone NOW and only in the UK must not know these things?

Was it a reading or comprehension fail? Or both? Do you have a concept of time?

Can I ask those that feel taking a husband's name is conforming a tradition that has its roots in a man's ownership of his wife, do you also refuse to wear an engagement ring

I have one, in the full knowledge that this too is a patriarchal tradition (although it’s more about property - the ring was a downpayment of sorts that the woman got to keep if the man broke off the engagement).

No diamonds though, and not one he bought. It’s a family one that got passed down from mother to daughter-in-law to daughter for a few generations, which makes me a bit happier with it.

I have an engagement ring, a wedding ring an anniversary ring and a bracelet he gave me that did actually get locked on with a kind of key at Christmas DH doesn't wear jewellery at all so not a lot I can do about that, though I think most men do wear wedding rings these days.

Is this the time to tell people the deeply patriarchal history of the Eternity ring?

Please do Bertrand. I like being educated by you

My great-grandmother had one after having a baby, and I misheard it as “maternity ring” and for years thought it was a ring you got when you’d finished having babies to prove you didn’t have to have any more.

Tempted to get a Kickstarter going on this.

I live in a part of London that has a large Saudi / other Middle Eastern community and many women do not change their names. I have a Saudi friend who did but I think she said it's not the norm. I think in some cultures name-changing is considered more "modern" than not, eg more women do it in cities than in rural areas.

Well I love jewellery, what can I say?

itsu you have to remember this is AIBU and not feminist chat. Some women will just never get it

I loathed my name growing up, and when I was 17 I researched what I’d need to do to change it. I would expect anyone with such a hatred of their name to at least look into it. (And of course I ultimately kept my name. Perspective is a wonderful thing.)

I simply don’t buy that if people hate their name so much that they can’t wait to be rid of it on marriage, they haven’t previously investigated what they would need to do to rid themselves of that name pre-marriage.

What is a wind up about admitting I took my husband's name and have an engagement ring, etc? I think you will find most women do. Surely you must know that. And I do "get" what you're saying Itsu. I might even agree with some of it, but in my view it is you and other PPs who are "over-egging" it.