Surnames - is this a step forward or the state taking on the role of domineering husband?

[TouTou]

Just interested in your thoughts really. As feminists, like. ()

I moved to Quebec and have been forced (yes, literally forced) to take back my maiden name. I am not allowed to take on my DHs name (which I've had for several years,) in the interest of 'equality'.

I consider myself a feminist. It took my 10 years for me to finally marry DH and after that I kept my own name for 3 years.

When we had DCs I wanted the same name as them, (I've worked in healthcare and have seen several times problems with obtaining consent caused by family members having different names). My DH, again, felt really strongly that he wanted them to have his name as he is the only son of an only son (ie, the last of his name) and I have siblings to carry on my name. Also, he is very attached to his family and I don't really respect my Dfather, so again, not didn't feel as passionately about it as he did. It took me a while and much chin stroking, but in the end we all became 'The TouTous'.

In other words, I wasn't forced into having his name, but came about taking it through long consideration.

But, because Quebec is very much an 'equal' province, women are not allowed to do this. And because DCs still seem to take on the fathers name (just shows you can't grow equailty in a day), most of the DCs have different names to their mums.
I'm pissed off about having a different name from my DCs (again, it causes problems at border crossings with the USA etc) and the state having a paternalistic attitude that women are so put upon that government should tell them what is best for them.

What are your thoughts on this?

The feminazis is mean to grave-cruisers, Wilson.

Margery I agree with Garlic and Bonnie. We all of us make compromises and sometimes find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. This whole discussion is about how we might remove the barriers to women making a free choice about how they are addressed. Surely there is no point pretending there aren't any barriers, or that overcoming them is simply a matter of being feminist enough.

I don;t give a monkeys about genealogists

I don't know much about genealogy, but surely birth certificates, census records etc would be of more use than surnames - after all two people having the same surname doesn't prove they're related, and doesn't tell you anything about the nature of the relationship.

It would be a fairly minor concern for me in choosing my child's name, anyway!

All I know about it is my FIL drones on about it all the time trying to engage my interest in some great great great uncle twice removed who they've just found a record of in chipping norton.

It's awful.

Actually genealogists would probably prefer a matrilineal naming system as that would be more likely to yield real blood connections. I'm sure there's an odd postman or gardener in many a family line!

I'm no married but I would keep my name, purely because it's my family name and I want to keep it. My ds has his dads name for practical reasons mainly. No one questions that I'm his mother although I have a different name. Dp would be questioned if he didn't har dps name. Society expects it an it does make sense in practical terms I.e geneology.

Good heavens. Is genealogy a hitherto unsuspected patriarchal force? Or are we being invited to tilt at a windmill, perchance?

Ephiny Wed 04-Jul-12 17:48:59
I don't know much about genealogy, but surely birth certificates, census records etc would be of more use than surnames - after all two people having the same surname doesn't prove they're related, and doesn't tell you anything about the nature of the relationship.

In terms of genealogy, one of THE most useful thing I've found is where the child takes on BOTH parents surnames in some way, using one as a middle name or uses a family surname from another relative - eg grandparent. It makes it a lot easier to establish a relationship with other records to back it up.

The trend is very common in both my family and my husband's family. Its one I like very much.

There is talk of ending the census as its so expensive to use and there is now numerous other sources that reveal who is living in the same household. However these don't state the relationship between householders which in the future would mean you'd have to rely purely on birth certificates. Birth certificates are great and do hold the most information. The problem with them is you have to know which is the correct one in the first place and in the case of more common names that isn't always easy.

Has to be said though, given we live in a data age, there is so much more information about people in general because we are so obsessed with record keeping. For example I wonder what will happen to our fb information long after we are dead.

But I digress from the topic slightly.

Yes double barrelled makes sense hmm, how does that work in future generations? What names do they take and whih ones are dropped?

No not necessarily double barrelled but as a middle name.

There is a name in my husband's family that came from a mother and was passed down the paternal line of her husband for the next 4 generations. Its an unusual name so its quite easy to follow. It was the only was we were able to trace the family line as in one generation a husband ran off with another women and the wife ended up with the husband's cousin (!!!) so there was no marriage between her and the direct male ancestor of my DH. We eventually matched it up with birth certificates and other documents to prove the relationship though. Would never have managed it on the fathers surname alone.

In my family there has also been a similar thing with the same name passing through the family through the maternal line only. So it was Smith Jones, Smith Brown, Smith Green.

My family history has thrown up some very interesting early feminists in my family as it goes. Surprised me a lot.

So to my mind although genealogy is predominately patriarchal in nature, there is more matriarchal stuff than you might be aware of and both work well together and in combination in my opinion.

I'm not married and have no wish to change that. My son has my family name (now our family name ). Can't see the problem. I can safely say that I never even considered giving him my partner's family name.

It seems obvious to me that chidren should have their mother's name if it's likely that they will be the primary care giver through childhood. If the father is to be the primary care giver then the child should have his name.

I know several women who took on their partner's name and have since split and so are stuck with a name that isn't "theirs" because they can't change it otherwise they wouldn't have the same name as their children and it confuses the school/doctor/customs officer.

I don't see it as a particularly feminist issue; simply a practical one looking at the odds around divorce. (I don't do romance )

I like the Icelandic system too.

Hmm, that's interesting, not thought of it like that before. My family name is a nonsense anyway as my dad changed it when he came for his country in the 60's, so that people could say it and remember it, important for his profession.

A lot of naming (I'm referring to first names now) was traditionally about honouring various members of the family - both male and female.

There was often a system of naming children. For example first son named after father, first daughter after mother, second son after paternal grandfather, second son after maternal grandmother and so on. (Which resulted in lots of cousins with the same names).

I've also got ancestors who got odd middle names from godparent's surnames. I've got ancestors who got the opposite gendered name to the parent (eg henry and henrietta).

I'm not convinced that all naming is all about ownership. I would say a substantial amount was, but a lot of it was about more general respect and honouring important family members of both genders.

I kept my maiden name (much to my MIL and Grandmothers annoyance). If I have kids, I'd very much like to do something that honours or remembers ancestors in some way. I haven't decided how to do that yet - I have a few thoughts about which way to go.

From looking through mine and my DH's family history there is a few good options and reasons behind them to look at which would be nice. Its nice to have the choice though, rather than have anything imposed on me.

When dh and I had children we intended to share parenting equally, and we did for quite a few years until dh's work dried up a bit and he went part time, so he was more of the primary carer then. Then we had a period of equal parenting again and now he is a full time SAHD. I know this is relatively unusual but I doubt we are unique.

Perhaps it would be best on having children to pick a new name for the whole family? I can see that this might be tricky for official recording and clearly Quebec would not be happy at all

Hello Toutou, I guess Canadian laws are similar to Italian ones (I live in UK but I was born in Italy).

In U.K. I can change my name and when I get married (I'm engaged) I'll be able to take my husband's surname. I also can change it useing the deed poll.
Unfortunately, doing this means I've to renounce to my Italian citizenship and passport, because they won't recognise me as one of their citizens anymore, Italian laws don't allow any name and surname change unless ordered by a court (for specific reasons, and getting married isn't one of them).
Italian citizens have to bear their father's surnames for life.

To be honest, I never thought that was kind of equality rule though, it seems quite archaic given that it forces a woman to have ties with the original family all her life.

Merlin- how does this rule work in Italy for single mothers/those who register a birth alone/ those who don't know the father?

Why do we need surnames anyway? Aren't they all about ensuring legitimacy anyway and isn't that just a patriarchal tool to keep us chaste and ensure the passing of private property down the father's line? That's so like 2 centuries ago!

I wanna be part of a clan like in the good old pre-patriarchal days. Ooooo the mumsnet clan. Messy of Mumsnet.

@Margery, children born from single mothers who don't know the father (or if the child's father refuses to legally "recognise" the baby as his) have the mother's maiden surname. Which is her father's surname though, so as you can see it's always a man's surname to be brought down the line.

Anyway, at least something horrible has been abolished in the last years, the fact that children's births were registered with "NN" as a surname (No Name), which made it clear to everybody that the child was fatherless and the woman had conceived without being married.

I'm with messy on this.