Anyone know of any stats on name changing after marriage?

[anotheronebitthedust]

I'm at the age (28) when facebook suddenly makes the change from photos of nights out to endless wedding albums - but scrolling through it today I suddenly realised that pretty much every single woman close to my age I have as a 'friend' on fb has changed their name after their wedding. Not most, not even almost all - every single one!

Most of these friends are from school/uni/work/travelling so are within 2-3 years of my age, some left school at 16 but majority have at least a degree, lots with masters, post grads, etc. They come from, and now live, all over the UK, so some still in the smallish town I grew up in but many others from all over the place. Several either have previously, or currently do, live abroad. So a fairly wide spectrum of my age group.

It really surprised me. When I was in my late teens I thought it was getting more and more common a) not to marry at all in a ltr and b) not to take the husband's name. However in the last few years it seems like both trends have completely reversed and I wondered if anyone knew of any stats that back up if my personal experience is/isn't reflective of the UK generally.

I'm not necessarily bothered by it - although some of the reasons I had from the friends I asked about it did make me ) I would imagine most of them have made reasoned decisions why they name changed and are happy with it. It just struck me that if it was a true choice, then the likelihood would be that not everybody would happen to make the same choice and that therefore, for whatever reason, perhaps it isn't as much of an actual choice... - I know this is incredibly badly expressed but hope you get the gist of what I mean!

Facebook only shows you part of what people are doing though. I changed my name personally and legally - so have changed it on Facebook. Professionally, I still use my maiden name though - and that's what you'd see on LinkedIn.

We did consider double barelling but our surnames were too long, and we also looked at combining our surnames to male a new name but couldn't come up with anything sensible from our 2 names. The only option we didn't discuss was both of us taking my surname, I guess because I didn't feel strongly enough about taking his name to suggest going against tradition that way.

Instead I've added my maiden name as a middle name, and our children will all have my maiden name as one of their middle names too. It works for us, I liked having the same surname as DH before we had kids, and now we have DS would hate to have a different surname to him. DH did agree to add my maiden name as a middle name too but I have to admit we haven't got round to it....

Imposed?

But you don't feel your parents' choice of first name was imposed?

Some surnames come from place names. Are they also "male imposed"?

Actually Hillary as somewhat of an aside, it is still common practice here to distinguish between people with the same surnames where the family name originates using their father and grandfather. So for example Michael John Tom may have the same surname as 10 other Michaels in the area but John and Tom are the father and grandfather. The girls are similarly distinguished via their fathers. Luckily since the advent of younique naming it is less prevalent for our children's generation but it is still widely used to name people locally in this generation. I guess that makes us feel more connected to the origin of surnames than say the like of Cooper and the other examples you are giving.

My fil's party piece was a song called "Lily Macnally-McNair, the Pride of the Clyde and the Liffey"

Completely irrelevant apart from the hyphen. It just popped into my head when someone was talking about Mc names.

My first name was chosen, my family name was imposed.

Yes there are family names which derived from female occupations, and names from places, but people with those names are called that because their male ancestors have passed it down to them.

The reason that most children have their father's surname not their mother's is that most married women ditch their birth surname on marriage. If more women kept their own name, more children could have their mother's surname and then the "it's still a man's name" argument would be null and void. Although it is anyway - the idea that if a brother and sister are both named after their father the boy's surname is permanent and the girl's identical surname is disposable is clearly ludicrous.

The girls are similarly distinguished via their fathers.

Not ime, girls (and sometimes boys too) can be distinguished via their mother's line.

Máire Bhríd Máire every bit as common as Cóilín Phat Cóilín.

Also the use of those names distances people from their official surnames.

You make a good point about bringing Nic/Ní back into the English forms of the names.

None of them mean "son of first name" any more and haven't or generations.

Being the daughter of that family makes more sense than women carrying "son of" names.

Men had more influence in the development of the English language, so really we can't make feminist naming decisions until we invent an enturely new language in which to speak about naming.

Until then all words belong to men and women only borrow them.

We are actually mute.

So is Nicol or Nichol a surname meaning "daughter of.."?

"most married women ditch their birth surname on marriage. "

Exactly. The child had the mother's name, but the mother had the father's name at the time.

In the maternity hospital, my kids were given tags with my surname, not DH's.

I don't think Nichol is an Irish surname. An example might be McDonald being Ní Dhomhnaill.

There are a few countries where the mother's name is more often passed onto the child. It has not made them any more equal or less sexist.
Of all the things we could do to improve equality, I don't believe that women not changing their name on marriage would make any significant difference.

Making naming non-sexust wpuld make thibgs more equal in and of itself.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that tgat us the only thing that matters and naming equality would bring any otger kind of equality.

I don't see why it's such a big thing for people. Every one has a choice, and people make the choice they feel is right for them.
I know there's been comments about it being 'traditional', but for me I was a very traditional bride and kept most of the 'old fashioned' traditions at my wedding- dad have me alway and passed my hand to my groom, veil over my face until I reached my htb, then my dad lifted it back, my htb did not watch me walk down the aisle, he remained facing forward. I chose to do all these things because I wanted to, not because I felt I had to.
The same with changing my name after marriage- we were expecting our first child, and it as important to us to be married before the baby was born- that was our choice and I'm not judging anybody. I always knew I'd take my husbands name after marriage, simply because I wanted to. I was proud of who I was, and as my dads only child I was the only one who could have carried on his family name. But for me, that was me before I got married. When we got married we came together, and I felt that taking my husbands name was important because it made me feel like we were the same, sharing a family name- our family name.
I completely understand why many women choose to keep their own name, or wonder why their husband isn't expected to take their name, but I think it's a personal choice, and I know for me taking my husbands name was the right choice.
(Plus there is another reason why my husbands name means so much to him, but it's private so I won't discuss it)

Taking a husband's name and using the title Mrs does not mean that a woman is not a feminist. She might be or might not be. However keeping her birth surname and using Ms sends out a clear signal that someone is a feminist and I like that.

Taking your husband's name and being Mrs doesn't mean you aren't a feminist. Of course it doesn't. But it does mean that you have made a non feminist choice. (Tempted to say "anti feminist" but decided on the more neutral term.)

I kept my name. I'm Ms Darling.

I was recently being booked in at hospital and the Ward Sister said "I'm confused, you list yourself as married but your next of kin is Mr DH and your other emergency contact is Mr Darling. Is one your ex husband and the other your partner?"

When I explained that Mr DH my DH and Mr Darling is my father, she said "why are you Ms? I thought that was only for divorcees?"

When I said I've used Ms since I was 18 because it's no one's business if I'm married or not, I thought her head would explode.

But Kel, you clearly are not a feminist.

You embrace and enjoy traditions that put you in a submissive and lower status position.

That's your choice to do in sexist society that imposes all kinds of hardships on women.

You can choose to be a part of that oppression and celebrate it in your own life.

Of course you can.

That's the easiest choice to make.

But it is a choice that accepts that women are not equal to men and shouldn't seek to be.

I was around 12 when I decided that Miss was a ridiculous title and I would never use a title that advertised my marital status.

I've been Ms ever since.

At that age I thought there was no way women would still be using marital titles by the time I was an adult.

And as a feminist, I enjoy the right to make decisions that others choose to view to be non-feminist.
If I had to keep my previous name in order to be viewed to have made a feminist choice, then that's not really a choice.

I have made plenty of other choices that some might deem to be non-feminist. I gave up work to have children, I did the majority of the housework while our children were young, I was financially dependent on my DH for a long time, I mentioned previously that I shave my legs. These are all decisions that I made. They weren't made for me by my DH or anyone else, there were other options that I could freely have chosen, but these were my free choices. Yet they are still considered by some to be non-feminist.

The way that I see it, is that the simple fact of having a free-choice, makes any choice made a feminist one. It's when the decision cannot reasonably be made by the woman that the choice is non-feminist.

"The way that I see it, is that the simple fact of having a free-choice, makes any choice made a feminist one."

There are loads of choices a woman can make that are non/anti feminist!

What Bertrand said.

the idea that if a brother and sister are both named after their father the boy's surname is permanent and the girl's identical surname is disposable is clearly ludicrous

It is. I can't get my head round this idea that a girl or a woman does not have her own name. If nothing else my family does mean far more to me than my husband's family. I'm not part of his family, why would I use my father in law's surname?.

I asked about names on re-marriage - clearly every one who thinks it is impossible to function as a family unit unless you all have your father in law's surname never divorce or remarry.

If it's so vitally important that all the family have the same name what happens when a name changer with children divorces and remarries?

If you take new husband's surname then presumably the children of the first marriage have a different surname? Or do you keep your former surname?

So any choice made by a woman is automatically a feminist choice just because a woman made it?

So feminism means nothing at all?