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 ?

Lol, but what if you remarried someone with the same surname as the one she's wanting changed?! Tell them to stuff it.

I think it’s understandable that the new wife would want to be the only Mrs X.

Very few people get to be the "only Mrs X". There's generally his mum, and other relatives, and tons of other people that aren't even related who happen to have the same surname.

The woman who kicks off about this is territorial and actually trying to erase the bloke's history. Which is daft, because he's already marrying her. If she feels so threatened by the ex-wife, she's in for a rough ride.

Ice, the new wife might well prefer to be the only Mrs X, but she hasn't married a virgin - there comes a point in life where everyone has a past and grown ups have to just live with it and not be expecting everyone else to accommodate her preferences.

This is why you should keep your own name when you get married.
28 years married and having my own name has not caused any great confusion or angst to our kids, schools etc - only to my late MIL

I didn't like my maiden name, that's why I changed it.

If I had a do-over, I'd probably make up a new name.

But, as well, it seems a bit melodramatic and unnecessary to change names just because you're divorced. The marriage didn't work out, but it was part of my life - and I don't have to reject every aspect - just him .

Frame the letter and hang it somewhere. Downstairs toilet would be perfect if you have one. You could also take a photo and post it on Facebook with no comment.

I would initiate a continuous letter ping pong, which costs you nothing but costs them for each letter. You could insist you will only deal by post.

Eg: for a start you could ask under what part of the law requires you to revert to your maiden name?

Next you could ask if there was a requirement to change the children's names too (knowing full well there is not). Each of your letters requiring a response. Ching Ching, see who stops first.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Surely people can only bring a case to court if there's actually a proper legal dispute? And better I think, to go to court, than to have people doing what they are not legally obliged to do because they've been frightened into it by a solicitor's letter. This 'request' isn't something the OP needs to negotiate. This situation would have been better if the ex's solicitor had told him that there is no legal authority to make the OP change her name and to restrict the letter to the facts/financial information.

People can and do bring cases with no merit to court. They only do that when there's something they're disputing, obviously, but it's totally possible to make vexatious applications and people do, causing great stress and often expense to the other party. You've not provided any evidence that a solicitor's letter with no law to back it up would be any less distressing, and it certainly wouldn't cost the public as much. All you've done is tell us about people who you think would change their names because a solicitor's letter asking them to would frighten them enough to do it, which seems to be based as much on you not understanding the actual role of a solicitor as it is anything else.

Essentially, your idea is a really bad one. You said upthread that solicitors letters should only be written when there has actually been lawbreaking. You evidently haven't even stopped to consider how this might affect, for example, contact or divorce proceedings. Both of which often involve considerable negotiation before/instead of the court stage and for neither of which it would be in anyone's interests to force further legal proceedings to happen when there is disagreement.

Amen, @GilderoyLockdown

Solicitors are, and always have been, engaged to act in the best interests of THEIR CLIENTS. Not the random other persons they may be disputing. They advise THEIR CLIENTS on the law. They engage in negotiations on behalf of THEIR CLIENTS.

You would be a rubbish negotiator if your client paid you to negotiate for X, and you said to the other party "we want X, but you don't have to do it and actually there is no good reason why you should bother". Instead you ask outright for X, and then you can sit tight and see if they'll agree to do it or not, or if they want something in return.

As for people believing solicitors have "legal authority" to tell them what to do, well, considerably greater numbers of people believe 5G causes coronavirus but it doesn't make that myth true either.

As I see it contact and divorce issues are legal disputes. Of course there is room for solicitors to negotiate settlements prior to court but should still be dealing in facts and not using their profession to intimidate/bully people into doing anything they have no legal requirement to do.

You seem to think that getting a resolution because one party has been deceived into it is better than going to court - I disagree. I also believe that solicitors have an obligation to not allow clients to proceed with court action which has no basis in law. If there is room for doubt, then court is the best place to clarify.
None of that has anything to do with solicitors sending letters just because they've been paid to and using the weight of their profession to 'persuade' people into compliance. You are being deliberately obtuse if you think it's just about changing a name, since it is clear that some solicitors will write anything if you pay them to. There are a lot of vulnerable people out there who will believe what a solicitor tells them or who cannot afford to get their own legal advice.
Seems to me the solicitors always win.

I would be tempted to ask what sort of financial remuneration they would be willing to part with in exchange for the huge inconvenience of changing your name. How much money does he have and how much does she want to be the only Mrs Amberskies ? Be interesting to see wouldn't it

Lol PhillipJennings.

And it's all very well couching this in terms of fairness, but what if Person A and Person B are in dispute over something. Person A is at a considerable disadvantage when it comes to negotiating because they're not confident, are afraid of doing something wrong, wouldn't know where to start when it comes to writing a formal letter. Meanwhile Person B is all of those things and is really worrying and upsetting Person A with it. But Person A isn't allowed to pay someone to try and mitigate their disadvantages at the negotiation stage and set out what they want in writing, however frightened they might be of Person B. They can, however, pay a solicitor to make an application to court to deal with the matter on their behalf instead. Good thing we're not about to see swingeing cuts to public services, eh?

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

As I see it contact and divorce issues are legal disputes. Of course there is room for solicitors to negotiate settlements prior to court but should still be dealing in facts and not using their profession to intimidate/bully people into doing anything they have no legal requirement to do.

You seem to think that getting a resolution because one party has been deceived into it is better than going to court - I disagree. I also believe that solicitors have an obligation to not allow clients to proceed with court action which has no basis in law. If there is room for doubt, then court is the best place to clarify.
None of that has anything to do with solicitors sending letters just because they've been paid to and using the weight of their profession to 'persuade' people into compliance. You are being deliberately obtuse if you think it's just about changing a name, since it is clear that some solicitors will write anything if you pay them to. There are a lot of vulnerable people out there who will believe what a solicitor tells them or who cannot afford to get their own legal advice.
Seems to me the solicitors always win.

This is evidently written in ignorance of how law in practice actually works.

Contact and divorce are legal disputes, but how exactly do you propose negotiation if they're only dealing with facts and can't say what they want? There are laws, but the nature of such negotiation is that parties state what they want to happen. There isn't a law saying Jane Smith and John Jones have to arrange contact this way, there are laws about overriding principles and parties both ask for what they want to happen within these. That doesn't and can't possibly involve simply stating facts. You do not understand the areas of law you're discussing.

As for these vulnerable people who apparently think they have to do anything a solicitor tells them, it's a shame you're not bothered about how they might feel if court proceedings are started (and do you think that never involves a solicitor either? I have news for you if so!). Or about the impact on them if nobody can do any effective negotiating without getting a court involved, so we have to raise taxes and/or make cuts elsewhere to services they use in order to pay for that.

In your scenario, person B would also likely have a solicitor.
It's fine to use a solicitor to ask for what you want in a negotiation, but that still should fall into the realms of what you are legally entitled to ask for.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Surely people can only bring a case to court if there's actually a proper legal dispute? And better I think, to go to court, than to have people doing what they are not legally obliged to do because they've been frightened into it by a solicitor's letter. This 'request' isn't something the OP needs to negotiate. This situation would have been better if the ex's solicitor had told him that there is no legal authority to make the OP change her name and to restrict the letter to the facts/financial information.

The solicitor might have advised him that the name change isn't a reasonable request but if ex is willing to pay he can insist that it's added to the letter.

It's not the solicitor's job to investigate the truth. The solicitor represents the ex and try his luck at writing an official letter that makes op back down but they make money from the amount of time they spend on work for the ex. Many would be happy to pay ping pong by letter as each letter makes them money.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

In your scenario, person B would also likely have a solicitor. It's fine to use a solicitor to ask for what you want in a negotiation, but that still should fall into the realms of what you are legally entitled to ask for.

No, in my scenario Person B doesn't have a solicitor. People who are competent and representing themselves exist, and this is one of them. There are, like it or not, going to be situations where the parties are both in person and one is frightened of the other.

And you are legally entitled to ask people to do things that they are then legally entitled to refuse to do. This is a plain fact. The letter the OP has received falls squarely within this category, laughable though the request is.

@DianaT1969

You should add a tagline to your signature. Mrs [name] 'The original and still the best' 🤣

Yes please do this!

Haahaa! Fuck them both.

Start calling her The Second Mrs De Winter.

You haven't told me how vulnerable people, or those without access to legal advice benefit by getting legal letters which have no basis in law. Letters whose sole purpose is to pressure them into conforming to the wishes of the person who can access legal help.
To come back to the specifics of the OP, she and her ex aren't in a legal dispute over her name, since there's no doubt over her legal rights, so what's the point of the solicitor writing to her about it except to pressure her? That to me is unethical

Am giggling at the fact there are now at least two new wives / ex husbands freaking out about wife number one changing her name back .
That’s your choice not his or hers .
Smacks of insecurity .

Hilarious.

Reminds me I once (a long time ago) worked on a ward with two nurses both sister ‘smiths’. I worked there a year before I found out one had married the others ex husband. The initial Mrs Smith left her husband for another woman so I don’t think there were any hard feelings between the two of them.

The sheer fact it’s pissing her off would make me want to keep the name even more

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

You haven't told me how vulnerable people, or those without access to legal advice benefit by getting legal letters which have no basis in law. Letters whose sole purpose is to pressure them into conforming to the wishes of the person who can access legal help. To come back to the specifics of the OP, she and her ex aren't in a legal dispute over her name, since there's no doubt over her legal rights, so what's the point of the solicitor writing to her about it except to pressure her? That to me is unethical

The time has come for us to consider the possibility that it looks unethical to you because you don't know what you're talking about. You've written about abuse of a legal authority that doesn't exist, commented on areas of law you clearly know nothing about, are either unaware of vexatious litigation or think people are magically unaffected by it and have a view of negotiations that makes it very clear you don't know anything about them.

Your first sentence is a strawman, since you're conflating people who have letters written to them with people who can't access legal advice. But for those who actually can't access it, they're going to find it much less pleasant having to self-represent in court proceedings that can actually affect them than they are being the recipients of a solicitor's letter that they're completely entitled to ignore. And if you're so keen for pre-court negotiations not to actually achieve anything, you can pay more tax to fund it. Personally I'd rather mine went on something useful.

But this isn't about pre court negotiation. It's about not writing letters with the purpose of implying that people should do what they have no legal obligation to do.

Maybe it looks unethical to me because it is unethical.