To not become Mrs Celebrity Name?

[SummerFate]

I’m getting married later this year and had always assumed I’d take my husband’s name. I’ve never been particularly attached to my maiden name (divorced parents) and I’d like to have the same surname as my kids, which my mother doesn’t have.

However, if I do do this, I’ll have the same name as a celebrity. It’s not an A lister where it would be remarked on all the time, and it will still be a fairly ordinary name. (Think someone like Kaye Adams for the level of fame and ordinariness of name.) But it’s someone well known enough that I’ll definitely get “Ooh, I didn’t recognise you! You look taller on the telly” type jokes that I can do without. So I figure it’s just easier to keep my maiden name.

However, my fiancé has taken exception to this. He’s taking it personally and says I’m being daft: he said he’d understand me not wanting to be called Helen Mirren or Nicole Kidman, but that I’ll still have an ordinary name and that this celeb may be forgotten in a few years anyway.

I do get what he means, but he’s not the one who’ll be asked “Ooh, like the actress?” every time he gives his full name. I’ve also pointed out that a lot of women don’t change their name regardless, so he could have been marrying someone who never had any intention of being Mrs Name.

I’ve said we could double-barrel any children if that’s what he’s worried about, but he’s still complaining. AIBU?

I have this all the time.
Sigh, vague smile, move on.
However I am not a fan of changing identity to become Mrs Someone else.

My mum shares her name with a famous actress. It has always made me smile telling people ' no not that one'

No but there is always the possibility. This OP has said she is not attached to her maiden name. Can you think if any other reason why she might insist, as some on this thread have suggested, that both of them take a name that even she doesn’t like?

Interesting this isn’t it? A woman is proud of her name and wants to keep it, that’s fine, noble, progressive. A man being proud of his name and wanting it to continue down the generations - terrible, bad, controlling, LTB, Mumsnet double standards at their most obvious.

There's a power and privilege imbalance going back hundreds of years, which makes a woman wanting to keep her name not the same thing at all as a man having a conniption at her wanting to.

Also you're being disingenuous. We're not talking about the woman insisting the man take her name, but asking him to to see if he's just as keen on it when it's the other way around. If he doesn't want to, then he shouldn't expect her to.

A woman is proud of her name and wants to keep it, that’s fine, noble, progressive.

No, it's just her wanting to get the same as what the man expects - to keep her own name.

A man being proud of his name and wanting it to continue down the generations - terrible, bad, controlling, LTB, Mumsnet double standards at their most obvious.

No, a man liking his own name and wanting to keep it is fine. As long as he can understand and respect that the woman has a right to the same. You're straw-manning big-time.

The man thinking that by default the woman should take his name, when he wouldn't do the same, is what is not fine - because it's hypocrisy and sexist. Not because it either is or isn't "progressive".

As for passing his name on, the man should have no more right to that than the woman, and it's reasonable to negotiate a fair solution like double-barrelling or combining their names.

It's interesting how shit your comprehension is. But then people making things up is a pretty common feature of MN threads featuring women's surnames and titles.

For anyone suffering from the same affliction as you, let's spell it out. The woman here is happy for her husband to keep his own name, and she's prepared to use both surnames for herself and the kids. The man is not. The difference between the two is that the woman isn't expecting anything of the man, whereas the man very much is expecting something of the woman.

There is a double standard here alright, but it's coming from you.

Whatever is a conniption? I don’t think your argument is very valid. A man wants to keep his name. Whatever his reas

They are negotiating. Her reason for not taking his name is that she will have the name of a celebrity. She doesn’t even like her name. While I might acknowledge the need for some serious soul searching in some circumstances these are not they. Do it or don’t do it but don’t think that you are striking a massive blow for feminism when using such inane arguments.

@Lockdownsceptic And why can't she keep hers?

She never said anything about striking a blow for feminism. She just asked if she should have the right to choose her own name (whatever her reasons are) and whether her husband was reasonable to be stroppy about that. That's just equality. It would be equally unreasonable of her if she asked him to change his name and got stroppy if he refused, but that hasn't happened.

This makes no sense. A woman wanting to keep her name is only expecting the same consideration men have always taken for granted. She is not demanding that the man change his name to suit her. That's the fundamental difference.

As for continuing names down the generations, this will have to be a matter of compromise. Why is his name more important than hers?

Well, you could easily look it up, but here you are from the Oxford Learners' Dictionary:

'a sudden attack of anger or fear

• He had a conniption when he heard the news.
• This claim drove the media into a conniption fit.
• She’s prone to conniptions.'

You could just as well say 'A woman wants to keep her name.' What's your argument here?

I'd like to hear why you don't find the statement 'There's a power and privilege imbalance going back hundreds of years, which makes a woman wanting to keep her name not the same thing at all as a man' very valid, please, if you could lay out your reasons.

I can't reply to the rest of your post as it cuts off.

I know she never said anything about striking a blow for feminism. It is the rest of you I am addressing with that comment. Her reasons for not taking his name seem to be two fold.

1. She is reluctant to have the same name as a celebrity
2. Her fiance has expressed a desire to have her take his name.

Neither of these seem very good reasons to me, especially the second which seems cruel ( and yes a bit spiteful) as she has no particular allegiance to her own name. So when I try to answer these two points I am bombarded with feminist rhetoric that just isn't relevant in this case. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. I know perfectly well that I only get insulted when something I have said hits a nerve. I do wonder if all those people who have refused to take their husband's name (for whatever reason) are actually happier with their lot than those who have followed tradition. Perhaps like all changes it will take some time for the real benefit , or otherwise, to be realised.

Well yes I could but its a lot easier to get you to tell me. I must admit it is not a word I have come across before. Thankyou for enlightening me.

Pity it seems I won't get to hear you engage with my question, but hey-ho.

You're very bothered about this subject. Interesting to observe.

@Lockdownsceptic Even more interesting is your use of the phrase "refused to take their husband's name." I did nothing of the sort.

You're absolutely wrong about no. 2. She doesn't not want to take his name out of spite because he wants that. It's literally in the OP - she always planned to take her husband's name, but given it now will result in a name she doesn't want, she'd like to decide against it.

"I’m getting married later this year and had always assumed I’d take my husband’s name. I’ve never been particularly attached to my maiden name (divorced parents) and I’d like to have the same surname as my kids, which my mother doesn’t have."

All of your blustering and accusations are based on completely (possibly deliberately) misunderstanding the situation because it's just so hard to grasp that a woman could have her own valid reasons for something that are not to do with spiting men, taking things away for men or being deliberately mena to poor ole men for fun.

I know perfectly well that I only get insulted when something I have said hits a nerve.
Or it could be because when you talk illogical nonsense and spin grievances out of thin air, people point that out. Women even dare to point that out! The indignity!

I do wonder if all those people who have refused to take their husband's name (for whatever reason) are actually happier with their lot than those who have followed tradition.

Well, as I think was mentioned above, if women don't take their hiusband's name it's less likely to last. I've also noticed this anecdotally. My feminist friends who kept their names had the worst grief off their Hs and mostly ended up divorced. But are they happy? Ohhh yes! They happily single without the kind of man who can't bear for his wife to be an equal partner. As am I, though I didn't marry my long term ex. A LOT of men deep down just need to feel superior.

And I'd guess that's why more traditional male-name marriages may last longer / seem "happier" - because the women are more prepared to stroke the man's ego and put him first - out of practicality or internalised misogyny. Women suffer from this - but who cares eh.

So we are to believe you are happy because you tell us so but of course people who took their husband’s name can’t possibly be as happy as you even if they say they are. And I’m the one being illogical?

No, I didn’t say there are no happy marriages where it happens, or that there are no happy marriages where it doesn’t happen. Some women who change their name will be with nice, decent men, as will some who don’t. I also understand that some women will change their name for practical reasons or because they don’t care. And importantly I think it is an individual’s choice. I don’t go around in RL telling women they shouldn’t change their name (unless they ask me for an opinion).

But, the expectation on women to do it is patriarchal and unequal, and often the pressure is overt - generally from the man or his family IME. A woman choosing not to change her name is not the same thing as demanding the man does. But asking the man if he would often brings the sexism out into the open. He wouldn’t want to but still expects her to. If you can’t see the misogyny and basic unfairness and double standards there then - well, your lack of comprehension is consistent I guess.

I understand wanting to have a family name, though it doesn’t bother me personally - but I will only not see it as sexist when it happens equally both ways and no one is put under pressure.

If

She doesn't need a reason.

Men never need to justify their own names.Nor do women.

Neither of these seem very good reasons to me, especially the second which seems cruel ( and yes a bit spiteful) as she has no particular allegiance to her own name.

Did you even read my post? I’ve never said I wouldn’t take my fiancé’s name because he wants me to! How can I be “spiteful” when I haven’t even said this is an issue?!

Sorry. This all seems to have got a little out of hand. I have not been replying to your op for a long time, but to other people who also seem to have read things into your post that weren’t there to start with. Whatever you choose to do, I hope you are very happy.