Changing names when marrying

[WellLarDeDar]

I had liked the idea of taking on DHs name if we ever married and thought I wouldn't bat an eyelid but now it's time (wedding imminent!), I've discovered I'm more attached to my maiden name than I thought, but also still do like the idea of taking DHs name. I think his surname is really nice but it feels really weird thinking I wont have my old name anymore. Naively, I never expected to be unsure over it, it's a very strange feeling.

Is/was anyone else in two minds about it? I'm curious to hear what other people think.

Also, do you think it would be weird for someone to change their maiden name to a middle name and take on their DH/DWs name as a surname?

(DH said that he would love for me to take his name but it's up to me entirely so there's no pressure from him at all. Neither of us want a double barreled surname)

My point was a broader one I suppose about the co-option of this "feminism = choice" argument of which this debate is a particular example.

And that's a very fair point, I think. I won't derail, but I do agree that feminism shouldn't be defined as "absolutely anything done by a woman".

In the case of surnames, though, as you say, whether you keep it or change it, you're still just going by whatever a particular man in your family is called. If I said I would do everything my father said until I married and then obey my husband instead, you wouldn't think me very feminist. But if I said I would continue to do everything my father said for my entire life even after I married, would anyone think that to be so much better?

@CandlesBlanketsandTea I agree - why aren't more men taking their spouse's name if its so uncontroversial? Deep down they feel the symbolic power of their name. Names have power. Whatever you decide you need to remember that.

I wonder how gay men deal with this when they marry? Or lesbian women?

I think there can be a 3rd way - choose a name you both like from one of the family trees or just from a book of names. There are plenty of beautiful surnames out there. Deed poll for both of you.

And no, I don't give a fig about who in the family has their nose put out of joint. Our family name - we get to choose.

@Marmaladee

Why do people keep saying women would only be choosing from their fathers name if not their husband. The whole point is to break the cycle, in my opinion. So your children might have their mothers name or their husband to choose from, it's not just this one choice, it's about making change for future generations.

I think it's quite a disingenuous argument, and frankly, some are using it because they don't want to acknowledge the implications of their own choice.

Of course the name you are born with is your name! Whose else can it be? Is it inherited in the male line? Well yes. But if a woman keeps her name (and yes to reiterate, it is her name), and passes it on to her children, they will be given their mother's name which then will be their name.

Saying that the only way to get round this is to legally change your name by deed poll, otherwise taking your father in law's name is no different from keeping your own, is a silly argument I think.

[quote KisstheTeapot14]@CandlesBlanketsandTea I agree - why aren't more men taking their spouse's name if its so uncontroversial? Deep down they feel the symbolic power of their name. Names have power. Whatever you decide you need to remember that.

I wonder how gay men deal with this when they marry? Or lesbian women?

I think there can be a 3rd way - choose a name you both like from one of the family trees or just from a book of names. There are plenty of beautiful surnames out there. Deed poll for both of you.

And no, I don't give a fig about who in the family has their nose put out of joint. Our family name - we get to choose.[/quote]
There is so much power in a name! it's also wrapped up in professional identity, and I wonder whether women are missing out on potential opportunities because people who knew them with a different surname cannot find them. Add to that the divorce rate and the chances are the woman will become the primary care giver after a divorce it makes no sense!

@Willyoujustbequiet

I kept my name and dc have mine also. It would be a deal breaker for me.

Given the history and that women were mere chattel I just don't understand why anyone would be comfortable with that. Its almost internal misogyny.

From a practical perspective with half of marriages ending in divorce it makes sense to keep your own name.

This ^ 100%

@LemonRoses

I changed mine. I can’t now imagine being my maiden name. I wouldn’t have wanted children to have different names to us. It’s just a surname.

But clearly it's not 'just a surname', because firstly, you considered it important for your children to have the same surnmame, and secondly, you (I'm guessing) assumed that that surname had to be the man's, not the woman's.

Obviously surnames are important to you.

There is so much power in a name! it's also wrapped up in professional identity, and I wonder whether women are missing out on potential opportunities because people who knew them with a different surname cannot find them. Add to that the divorce rate and the chances are the woman will become the primary care giver after a divorce it makes no sense!

Exactly. I have worked really hard from my early twenties to create a professional identity and didn't give any thought to my name. So to change it to something random so that it has no association to any men (in this case my father) is ridiculous.

Because I'd STILL be erasing my identity - it doesn't solve that issue and that is actually the main issue I have with the whole thing. But what makes it worse is changing it by default of being a woman to a man.

I'd love to challenge every woman on this thread that changed their name to ask their husband if they'd have changed theirs and if not why not?

I did the very same thing to my husband and all of his friends and got not ONE logical response. At the end of it I said there's your answer right there as to why mine ISNT changing because it makes NO SENSE!!!

Saying that the only way to get round this is to legally change your name by deed poll, otherwise taking your father in law's name is no different from keeping your own, is a silly argument I think.

Why?

IcedPurple No, it’s is just a name. What was important to me was it was a shared family name. The children and us having the same name was important. What that name was, much less important. His was the nicer name. You’re assuming it was automatically defaulted to his name - we discussed, but mine wasn’t as nice. I thought about keeping mine for professional purposes, but my boss told me not to be half-baked and suggested having two names became complicated.

It’s perhaps shallow but I have an odd and unusual surname. My fiancé has a standard common name and I like the idea of having such a name - maybe I’ll change my mind after changing who knows. I might have double barrelled the names but they sound dodgy and clunky together. If it was just us then I might have kept my name but we have a child and so I want some connection in the surname to both of us so I think it’s simpler if I change to his name.

@LemonRoses

IcedPurple No, it’s is just a name. What was important to me was it was a shared family name. The children and us having the same name was important. What that name was, much less important. His was the nicer name. You’re assuming it was automatically defaulted to his name - we discussed, but mine wasn’t as nice. I thought about keeping mine for professional purposes, but my boss told me not to be half-baked and suggested having two names became complicated.

How is it that men always have the 'nicer' name?

You never hear of men saying that they took their wife's name because it was 'nicer'. Does your husband have sisters? If they are married, did their husbands also take their name? Because it was 'nicer'?

I find it really strange that by coincidence so many women have the worse sounding surname.

By a significant majority whenever a discussion was had in whose name sounds better it also ends up the mans. Funny that

@LemonRoses

IcedPurple No, it’s is just a name. What was important to me was it was a shared family name. The children and us having the same name was important. What that name was, much less important. His was the nicer name. You’re assuming it was automatically defaulted to his name - we discussed, but mine wasn’t as nice. I thought about keeping mine for professional purposes, but my boss told me not to be half-baked and suggested having two names became complicated.

I can understand the appeal of a shared family name for the children. But you say "what that was was less important" and "His was the nicer name".

I totally respect that each case is different and there are very personal reasons often for choosing one name over another. But I do suspect that in the vast majority of these situations it ends up being the man's name by default because that's the way its always been done.

Not saying that's wrong for you or your family. But it is worth unpicking because still so prevalent.

The tradition exists for changing the woman's name so if the man's name is nicer, it's a much more straightforward and easy choice.

@DrSbaitso

The tradition exists for changing the woman's name so if the man's name is nicer, it's a much more straightforward and easy choice.

And when the woman's name is nicer? Sounds like an uphill battle

@DrSbaitso

Saying that the only way to get round this is to legally change your name by deed poll, otherwise taking your father in law's name is no different from keeping your own, is a silly argument I think.

Why?

I've explained above. My name is my name. I've had it all my life. I don't have kids but if I did I'd give them my name, which would then be their name.

Saying that a name can never be a woman's even if generations of women pass it down is a bit like saying that "we're all immigrants if you go back far enough." Maybe technically true, but meaningless in any practical sense. So yes, it would be a feminist stance because a) it's saying that a woman's (but not a man's) identity does not change because she got married and b) because it's not adhering to the tradition that a woman's lineage is obliberated on marriage.

I think your own posts show you don't actually believe your own argument. You've said you wanted to get rid of your 'father's' name. Not your great great great (and so on) grandfather's name. You've also said you've taken the name of the 'man you adore'? One would assume you mean your husband, but by your rationale, your husband doesn't actually own his own name, does he? So do you 'adore' one of your husband's male ancestors?

Why is the name I was born with "my" name because my father said so, but the name I changed to isn't because I said so?

@DrSbaitso

Why is the name I was born with "my" name because my father said so, but the name I changed to isn't because I said so?

It becomes your name when you married, yes. Although begs the question of if it would still be your name if you divorce.

But the reason you took the name was because it was your husband's name (or by your rationale, his male ancestors'). You didn't choose to change your name to something else by deed poll. You chose to adhere to the patriarchal tradition of a woman taking a man's name. Which is absolutely your choice, but let's not pretend there are no feminist implications to it.

@DrSbaitso
Why didn’t you change your name by deed pole before you got married? Why did you stay single with the name of your abuser? Why do you think only Upon marriage you could change your name. Genuinely interested, because the argument of changing from a toxic name is often given, and the only people that I know that really did want to get away from it changed it way before any men were on the scene. Usually to their mothers

I think your own posts show you don't actually believe your own argument. You've said you wanted to get rid of your 'father's' name. Not your great great great (and so on) grandfather's name. You've also said you've taken the name of the 'man you adore'? One would assume you mean your husband, but by your rationale, your husband doesn't actually own his own name, does he? So do you 'adore' one of your husband's male ancestors?

I'll thank you not to inform me what I'm thinking. I wouldn't have married my husband or taken his name if he did what you're doing.

My husband's name is a male line name. He has been named for a man just as I was. He's a man himself so to me, that does imply a different dynamic, but either way, his name is dictated by men, yes.

But so was mine. Either way, I'm taking a male line name from a tradition based on male ownership. I simply do not see that I am making a great feminist point for choosing one male line name over another. And in my case, given the chance to ditch my abuser's name and take on the one of a man who actually treats me properly, I took it. I've also gone from something equivalent to Grubbe to something equivalent to Clearwater. Bonus.

They're both male line names. I'm not making a huge point either way. Nobody who meets me has any way of knowing it's a married name anyway.

Choosing a completely new name by deed poll really is the only way to escape the relics of this system because your name is dictated by your male line at this stage, whatever you do. You obviously don't feel strongly enough about this to have done that. That's fine, nor did I or any other woman I know. But it's not a "silly" argument, it's the only one that actually achieves what you claim to want. So if you won't do it, perhaps you can be a bit more respectful of other women who also chose whichever path within the male-line system was preferable to them.

I got married after 25 yrears if living with my now H.
I was not changing my name 25 yrs too late! If he wanted ne to have his name, he should gave made the decision to ifficialise sooner.
I have often been called Mrs "his name" throughout this time, in village & school context.
Also it so happens that I am proud of My family, my nationality , & my roots.
My mother was also My name, before marrying my father who coincidentally also had My name !
Also in the country I live in, the maiden name is still noted on certain documents.
The kids have his name sadly

[quote Taliskerskye]@DrSbaitso
Why didn’t you change your name by deed pole before you got married? Why did you stay single with the name of your abuser? Why do you think only Upon marriage you could change your name. Genuinely interested, because the argument of changing from a toxic name is often given, and the only people that I know that really did want to get away from it changed it way before any men were on the scene. Usually to their mothers[/quote]
If you were so interested, you'd see that I've answered this question already.

But I'll appease you. I was young at at time, busy with various issues, and while I wasn't sure at the time if I would change my name on marriage, I didn't feel strongly enough about it to go through the hassle, expense and opposition from family. I was young and had various other issues at the time to worry about.

Had I reached a point where I thought it unlikely I would marry, and after my father's death, I might have done it. I was more confident about handling my family at that stage.

But before I reached that point, I met a man I fell in love with, who treated me wonderfully, and had a name that I liked more than my own. I was faced with an easy choice and I took it. And I'm not reverting to Daughter of Grubbe The Abuser to please you or anyone else.

Nobody else ever felt strongly enough about paternal ownership to change their names independently either, so I don't see why it's my choice that requires justification.

Oh, and I didn't think of taking my mother's maiden name either because GUESS HOW THAT WAS DETERMINED TOO???

I will say this, though: it does wind me up a bit when a man refuses to marry the mother of his kids, but they get his name anyway.

I'll thank you not to inform me what I'm thinking. I wouldn't have married my husband or taken his name if he did what you're doing.

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument. And you've done it again. You didn't take your husband's name. You took his male ancestors' name.

And in my case, given the chance to ditch my abuser's name and take on the one of a man who actually treats me properly, I took it.

So your name was your father's name but your husband's name is his name?

Choosing a completely new name by deed poll really is the only way to escape the relics of this system because your name is dictated by your male line at this stage, whatever you do. You obviously don't feel strongly enough about this to have done that.

No, it's not really that I don't feel that 'strongly' about it. It's that I consider my name my name. I was born with it and have used it all my life. If I were ever to marry, I'd see no reason why that name should be superseded by someone else's, simply because he is male. Were I to have children, I'd want them to have the name of the person who gave birth to them.

So if you won't do it, perhaps you can be a bit more respectful of other women who also chose whichever path within the male-line system was preferable to them.

Nobody is being disrespectful. They are engaging with the arguments you've chosen to make on a public forum.