Ex husband's new wife wants me to change my surname !

[Amberskies2020]

This really annoys me!!! I was married to my ex for 24 years and his new wife is furious that I've kept my married surname. I kept it so that I had the same name as our children, plus it's what I've been known as for half my life !

Ex and I despise each other and do not talk but this has been put in a lawyers letter.

Did you feel pressured to change your name after divorce ?

This is comedy gold. I would be having the most entertaining time using some of theose ideas.

They are Bat shit.

@GilderoyLockdown

The double standard is referring to a woman's name as her father's but her husband's name as his own. That is a double standard regardless of the feelings of any of the people involved.

Well, both names are the father's. It only becomes an issue with women because they're almost always the ones who change names on marriage if someone does. So if someone is going to argue about it being anti feminist, the obvious question to ask is why Dad's name is ok but husband's isn't. Especially since husband is the one you presumably chose.

For whatever it's worth, I never make any assumptions about what a woman will do (I'll ask if I need to know and haven't been told) and will use whatever name she's opted to take. I'll address the wedding card to John and Sarah, or occasionally Bride and Groom if I think they'll like that.

@GilderoyLockdown

The double standard is referring to a woman's name as her father's but her husband's name as his own. That is a double standard regardless of the feelings of any of the people involved.

Yes I agree here!

I kept my name and my children have my name. So it is now matriarchal for my children, they have their mother’s name. They are both sons too I get a lot of funny looks and stick for this. I am the only person I know to have done this. And now I’m quite proud as I don’t have any future wives or ex issues!

I agree with this too!

I find it difficult to understand why a woman WANTS to take a man's name in this day and age.

I don’t need it repeatedly explained.

Well, both names are the father's. It only becomes an issue with women because they're almost always the ones who change names on marriage if someone does. So if someone is going to argue about it being anti feminist, the obvious question to ask is why Dad's name is ok but husband's isn't. Especially since husband is the one you presumably chose.

Well first of all, if both names are the father's then the husband doesn't get a name of his own any more than the wife does. But then, why do the fathers get their own names, when they presumably were passed down by someone else too? It's a total logic fail of an argument, generally only advanced by people who don't want to accept that choosing to take a man's name is more patriarchal than choosing to keep your own woman's name.

Either names given to males and females at birth are equally their own, in which case a woman gives up her own name for a man's. Or they only belong to the first person who had them (not always a man either, incidentally) in which case you're neither giving up your dad's name nor taking your husband's or his father's, except in the rare case when they're genuinely the first to have used them.

Whichever way you look at it, we get our names for a reason.

That reason may be that our father recognizes us as their child. Illegitimate children used to not get the fathers name. Then the mothers name was given.

Upon marriage, a woman would take the husbands name at first as a signal that she was owned by the man, and later that it was also his protection and family that she would be recognized within more than her own.

So even now, there is a reason. If an ex wife does not revert back to her name, it is a very obvious that she had a relationship with the man serious enough to still have his name, and often had kids with him. Psychologically it is clear which does make it understandable that a new wife and the Ex might feel things have not quite moved on. Yet it did happen, he did marry someone before, and that fact although uncomfortable, cannot be changed even with a name change.

Simple fix..change your surname and your children's surname back to your maiden name..you still have the same name as your children and then everyone's happy (apart from the idiot that cheated and caused this problem in the first place) also if he doesn't agree he risks looking envious and petty infront of the new Mrs Amberskies also a very big win ;)

If names are passed down the male line, it's pretty much the definition of patriarchy . Neither retaining your father's name nor taking your husband's (father's) is particularly a feminist "choice".

@GilderoyLockdown

Well, both names are the father's. It only becomes an issue with women because they're almost always the ones who change names on marriage if someone does. So if someone is going to argue about it being anti feminist, the obvious question to ask is why Dad's name is ok but husband's isn't. Especially since husband is the one you presumably chose.

Well first of all, if both names are the father's then the husband doesn't get a name of his own any more than the wife does. But then, why do the fathers get their own names, when they presumably were passed down by someone else too? It's a total logic fail of an argument, generally only advanced by people who don't want to accept that choosing to take a man's name is more patriarchal than choosing to keep your own woman's name.

Either names given to males and females at birth are equally their own, in which case a woman gives up her own name for a man's. Or they only belong to the first person who had them (not always a man either, incidentally) in which case you're neither giving up your dad's name nor taking your husband's or his father's, except in the rare case when they're genuinely the first to have used them.

There's no logical fail. It's a fact that names have passed down through the male line for so long that there's no way of gaining feminist ground by taking the name of a different male ancestor instead (eg maternal grandfather, as someone suggested earlier). And if a woman doesn't marry or change her name on marriage, nobody suggests it's not her name. We know it is.

The issue comes when someone does decide to change her name on marriage, and is then told that it's more feminist to keep her original name. It's not a logical fail to point out that either name ultimately comes from a man via marriage and therefore has the same legitimacy if you're going to look at it that way. If anything, I'd say the name one chooses is more empowering and more legitimate because, well, it was freely chosen and not assigned at birth.

I don't deny that the roots of it are patriarchal (nobody does, surely) but the same could be said of marriage itself. I know some women object to marriage on those grounds; I don't because the laws and culture that surround it have changed, and I feel the same about a married name.

@category12

If names are passed down the male line, it's pretty much the definition of patriarchy . Neither retaining your father's name nor taking your husband's (father's) is particularly a feminist "choice".

Again, why do your father and your husband's father get their own names when you and your husband don't? There are only two options here: either all of our names are ours, or nobody's surname is really their own if it were passed to them by any family member. The former is the more sensible of the two.

Additionally, in the UK, most of us don't actually know whether we got our surname from a man and then it was passed down the male line exclusively. There are surnames that originate from women, and there are women who have passed their surnames to their children. This means that unless you genuinely do know the exact history of your name and every ancestor who had it, you won't know whether you're making a choice that's the definition of patriarchy. In some cases you will actually know that you aren't. This makes it different to changing your woman's name to your husband's, when you will be certain you are doing something that is the definition of patriarchy.

There's no logical fail

It's pretty much the definition of a logical fail. You apply different standards to people in order to try and make a point. If your name is not your own because your father had it first, the same must be true of everyone else in the picture, including your husband, his father and your father. And if their names are their own because they were given to them at birth, so is yours.

The other points you make don't actually pertain to this: you are free to think it's more empowering to take a man's name instead of your own, but that is unrelated to the fact that saying you're swapping your dad's name for your husband's is totally illogical. Additionally, we live in a country where adults can call themselves what they like so unless a person marries on their 18th birthday, any name they use as an adult is a choice they have made.

OP

Please tell me you are a Smith, Jones, Taylor - something really common.

You could always change your given name name to Rebecca, and send her a copy of the book.

Or have multiple name changes, this week be Smith, next week Farquaharson-Smyth, then for three days you will be Mrs Featherstonhaugh unless it is raining when you will be Mrs Om.

That's hilarious!

I worked for a solicitors for a while doing admin for divorce etc and some of the stuff I saw was just hilarious and this isn't un-common especially when new wives are a lot younger. It seems to be something that bothers them although they cannot force you to do this - you don't have to "return" your name after divorce.
She just needs to get a grip and your ex husband needs to tell her to calm down he's wasting money via a solicitor arguing this case.
I'd just ignore the letters she'll get fed up

Surely a woman's main motivation for keeping her married name after divorcing would be to have the same name as the children? That, and avoid the faff of changing her name back.

The easiest practical solution to this issue is clearly for the husband and children to take the wife's maiden name ! Then, if the relationship breaks down, at least the wife (usually the RP) has the same name as the children and it's only the husband who has the bother of changing his name back...

@GilderoyLockdown

There's no logical fail

It's pretty much the definition of a logical fail. You apply different standards to people in order to try and make a point. If your name is not your own because your father had it first, the same must be true of everyone else in the picture, including your husband, his father and your father. And if their names are their own because they were given to them at birth, so is yours.

The other points you make don't actually pertain to this: you are free to think it's more empowering to take a man's name instead of your own, but that is unrelated to the fact that saying you're swapping your dad's name for your husband's is totally illogical. Additionally, we live in a country where adults can call themselves what they like so unless a person marries on their 18th birthday, any name they use as an adult is a choice they have made.

Sigh. The name, however you got it, is a man's via marriage. (Unless you choose a totally new one, but that's not what we are discussing.) It only becomes an issue with women because they're generally the ones who face the choice of whether or not to change on marriage as they are the ones who historically have done, and the tradition is formed. I promise you I really wouldn't care if a man chose to change his, though if he took his wife's name, he'd still just be taking another male name by marriage.

Again. Nobody suggests a woman's name isn't hers. But you are trying to suggest that a married
name somehow isn't, and asking me to make a massive feminist distinction between two men's name by marriage. If the name given to me without choice is mine, the name I chose to take most certainly is. It is not illogical at all to make a choice of one's own name; it makes more sense than just accepting one that was given to you at birth.

You can feel differently and choose differently, but it isn't illogical or a fail, however much you insist that it is. My married name is my name and I'm the one who gets to say what my name is.

@category12

If names are passed down the male line, it's pretty much the definition of patriarchy . Neither retaining your father's name nor taking your husband's (father's) is particularly a feminist "choice".

Er no! I give my children my name as I had not changed it on marriage. So there is a matriarchal line for them. If I’d taken my husbands name and they’d also got that name then it would have been patriarchal.

If the name given to me without choice is mine, the name I chose to take most certainly is. It is not illogical at all to make a choice of one's own name; it makes more sense than just accepting one that was given to you at birth. except that your choice was not any name. It was your husbands. You did not expect him to take yours.

I was talking about your (well, not yours specifically) but the woman's surname, not the children's - if her family name has been passed down the male line, then it's patriarchal.

Okay. But me keeping mine and giving it to my kids it matriarchal. If I’d taken the my husbands name I couldn’t do it.

Perhaps you should be more understanding - and suggest that she has The Real Mrs X tattooed across her forehead.

That is outrageous, of course you shouldn’t be expected to change your surname, I certainly wouldn’t.

Katy1213, how about 'the current Mrs X' or 'the next Mrs X' to help her think, if she's able to be reflective?

OP, maybe you should suggest XH changes his name to hers?

It's an awful hassle and you've already done it once, perhaps it should be his turn if he's concerned enough to get his lawyer to write to you.

Sigh. The name, however you got it, is a man's via marriage. (Unless you choose a totally new one, but that's not what we are discussing.) It only becomes an issue with women because they're generally the ones who face the choice of whether or not to change on marriage as they are the ones who historically have done, and the tradition is formed. I promise you I really wouldn't care if a man chose to change his, though if he took his wife's name, he'd still just be taking another male name by marriage.

Again. Nobody suggests a woman's name isn't hers. But you are trying to suggest that a married name somehow isn't, and asking me to make a massive feminist distinction between two men's name by marriage. If the name given to me without choice is mine, the name I chose to take most certainly is. It is not illogical at all to make a choice of one's own name; it makes more sense than just accepting one that was given to you at birth.

You can feel differently and choose differently, but it isn't illogical or a fail, however much you insist that it is. My married name is my name and I'm the one who gets to say what my name is.

You're mistaken. I haven't said anything to suggest that when a woman changes her name on marriage the name isn't hers. I can only assume you have mixed me up with another poster.

If you use a name, it's yours. Conversely, this is why the idea that a person's name isn't theirs because someone had it before them is so very idiotic. The decision to swap your woman's name for a man's on marriage is innately more patriarchal than keeping your woman's name, and there is no argument otherwise that doesn't require the person making it to be in denial, but that doesn't mean the name isn't yours when you choose the more patriarchal decision to adopt it.

You also seem confused about what I'm (correctly and indisputably) describing as a logic fail. I haven't referred to you taking your husband's name as that. I've identified that it's a failure of logic to refer to your name as your father's and your husband's name as his own. This is an entirely separate issue from the decision to change your name or not.

@Amberskies2020 have they written to the 'affair partner' and asked her to change her name too? They sound bloody bonkers, I'd ignore the letters as it'll cost them to send more. If they keep coming I'd find out if you can threaten them with harassment.