Did you change your name when you got married?

[MooncakeandAvocato]

I’m getting married soon. I will not be changing my last name - it’s not a practice that appeals to either of us. Any children will be double barrelled. This is a decision with which we’re both very happy.

This has come up in conversation with our families and friends and the reactions have been interesting. Nothing particularly negative, as we’re very much the demographic for this sort of thing, but a few of my female friends/relatives (none of the male ones) have expressed mild surprise that I ‘don’t want his name’ and ‘he’s okay with it’.

I find this interesting, so I thought I’d bring it to MN. Did you change your last name upon marriage? Why or why not? Do you regret your decision to change/not change it?

To be perfectly clear, I am happy with our decision (not canvassing for opinions on it). I am also entirely supportive of every woman and every couple choosing the naming convention that best works for them, so not judging people for doing things differently to us. Just interested in hearing people‘s experiences.

I didn't change mine OP. I just have no idea why I need to change my name? Especially by default because I'm a woman.

I cannot believe the tradition still exists TBH in the forward thinking society we are in it baffles me.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I can see, most girls and women either have their father’s surname or their husband’s - which I can understand is pretty patriarchal either way.

I suppose one answer would be for couples to choose a new surname when they get married - that would be more equal, and it would allow people like me to get away from a hated surname without simply taking a different man’s name. Personally, I would choose Grammaticus - it’s the surname of a BBC correspondent, and has always appealed to me.

People could choose either an existing surname, or make one up - or they could choose to keep a family name, if that was what they wanted.

I suspect that things will change gradually - although I do appreciate that there are a lot of women who want the change to be faster. Perhaps people could be encouraged to choose a surname when they turn 18 - that might speed things up as it would normalise choosing your own surname.

Apologies if this makes no sense - my brain is full of cotton wool today (well, that is true most days, at the moment).

most girls and women either have their father’s surname or their husband’s

So my husband's name his name, but mine is my father's?

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I can see, most girls and women either have their father’s surname or their husband’s - which I can understand is pretty patriarchal either way

I can't alter the fact that the surname I was given at birth was my father's, not my mother's, or the entire chain of women's lack of options and patriarchal structures which conditioned that choice/non-choice down the generations.

However, that name is my birth name. It isn't a 'starter' or 'maiden' name, like a starter home or some kind of developmental stage I'll grow out of. It's just my name, just as my husband's name is his name, the one we will have until we die. And the patriarchal naming pattern stops here. DS uses both our names.

@G5000

most girls and women either have their father’s surname or their husband’s

So my husband's name his name, but mine is my father's?

They're all male line names. That being the case, I didn't think it made a massive difference which one I used. If you are happy to accept a name that was given to you at birth as yours, why can't a name I chose to adopt in adulthood be mine?

At least this way I chose which male line name I wanted. And I'm much happier having this line as my name, as my father and paternal grandfather were both arseholes and my husband and FIL are not.

@G5000 - I referred specifically to women and girls because it is women who are expected to change their name on marriage - obviously men and boys get their surname from their father, in the majority of cases.

@JadeTrinket - I see your point, about your name being your birth name being yours, not your father’s - and I do tend to agree with you. But, from what I have read in previous threads on MN, there are plenty of women who don’t feel this way, and who don’t like the fact that their surname comes either from their father or husband - I guess it was them who my post was addressing.

I have never minded the fact that my surname came from my dad, and as you said, I thought of it as my surname, not his. However, it was used as the basis of a horrible nickname that was used to bully me relentlessly for 5 years at senior school, so I was very happy to change my name when I got married - which was the most common way for women to change their surnames, and one which was ‘acceptable’ and wouldn't cause hurt to my parents. If it had been the norm for people to change their surname to one of their own choice, when they reached 18, I would probably have done that. But would I then have changed my name again when I got married? I honestly don’t know.

The problem with that argument is the double standard. Anyone who thinks a woman's name either comes from the husband or the father is by definition wrong because of this, unless they were both genuinely the first person to hold their surnames of course. One could just as well say women give up their own names to take their FILs.

How is it wrong to say my surname (before I was married) came from my father, @ExceptionalAssurance? When I was born, my registered surname was my father’s surname, not mum’s maiden name or any other surname.

I’m sorry - I found your post confusing.

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius

How is it wrong to say my surname (before I was married) came from my father, *@ExceptionalAssurance*? When I was born, my registered surname was my father’s surname, not mum’s maiden name or any other surname.

I’m sorry - I found your post confusing.

I think @ExceptionalAssurance is just making the point that if a woman’s name is ‘really’ her father’s, as is said so often on these threads, then she’s changing it to her FIL’s name, not her husband’s. Or if that’s not considered the case, it’s a fairly blatant double-standard whereby men really ‘own’ their birth surnames whereas women are just lent them by whichever man they’re currently identified with.

That alone isn't wrong, it's when you (general) also say your husband's surname is his own that makes it incorrect. Because either surnames belong to the users all equally, or a surname is less 'yours' if someone else had it before you. It is the combination that is wrong.

How is it wrong to say my surname (before I was married) came from my father

It isn't. But your DH's came from his father as well, and you still refer to that name as 'his name', not 'his father's name'.
So if we are consistent here and say that women have names from their fathers, then so do men, and women give up their dad's name not for their DH's, but their FILs.

I’m sorry - I was using the terminology that I’ve seen most often, when this subject has been debated.

My main point was - what alternatives could there be, to allow people to move on from this patriarchal way of giving a person their surname? Eg. it being the norm to be able to choose a new surname when you turn 18, or it becoming the norm for couples to choose their married surname together, or to make one up.

Not at all, I think the fact that it's such common terminology despite the whopping great double standard is really telling. Pretty much sums up the whole discussion. And I don't actually think we can move beyond it while this notion of men having their own surnames and women just borrowing them persists. We can as individuals do little things to chip away, is all.