Surname change after marriage

[CalmDownPacino]

This probably seems trivial but is really bothering me and I don't have the right responses to people! Getting married in a few weeks, am not changing my name. Some people have asked if I'm changing my name and I've said no. The responses I get are mainly "well you'll still legally be Mrs Blah even if you pretend not to be". As far as I know this isn't true but I don't know if I'm right, nor do I have the right reply when people say this to me. As I said, I know it's no biggie but it's really irritating me.

I don't think it is overt pressure it is more that it was/is a definite social norm. It is just expected as the default, and you have to explain if you're not changing your name. Certainly I constantly get the assumption that I'm married to my long term partner, that my surname is his surname and that my title is "Mrs", just because I am of a certain age, have children, own a house etc.

Interesting comments about children's surnames.

I didn't and wouldn't have countenanced changing my own name. (DH would have rather liked it if I had wanted to, but he recognised a firmly held point of principle when he saw one, and didn't try to persuade me!) However, I didn't think for much more than a moment about the decision to give DS DH's surname. That seems a contradiction. I've thought about why. I guess part of it is that locally (London or other big cities may be different), encounters with health or education professionals seem to be totally all about the mother...from pregnancy through babyhood and the toddler/preschool years, and into primary school. Ther's also the whole "oh, how lovely, he's helping you with the baby/giving you a rest/babysitting" thing (um, no, he's being a parent). We wanted to be equal in all things parenting, but in terms of connectedness and other people's perceptions, the balance seemed automatically skewed towards me. So letting DH and DS share a name slightly redressed the balance.

There's also ingrained historical prejudices, particularly among the older generation, about children only having their mother's name if their fathers don't recognise them, which we just didn't feel like taking on.

I guess at the end of the day, you can't fight every feminist battle.

I’m 49 and never expected to change my name ever. So I think that assertion is incorrect. I married almost 20 years ago and kept my own name. I assumed that as time went on this would be the norm for everyone. I’m shocked today when I hear women who change their name especially the in law who told me it was because her new husband wanted her to🙄🙄🙄

I don't think it is overt pressure it is more that it was/is a definite social norm.

But the majority of women in their 40s will have got married sometime this century. People are making it sound as though those of us of that generation grew up in some long distant past. Even as a teen, I knew that the option was very much there to keep your own name. Yes, it was the norm to change your name, as it is now, but certainly there was no taboo against keeping your own name.

I just find it's interesting that this very obvious relic of the pariarchy is still enthusiastically accepted by many women who would consider themselves - and are - feminists.

I'm early 40s and I'd say it's the other way round - in my age group, university friends and colleagues were more likely to keep their names, whereas the late 20-somethings and 30-somethings I know who are getting married now, mostly seem excited to be "Mrs Hisname".

There does seem to be a lot of cutsey personalised Mr & Mrs merch around these days, like bathrobes and mugs. Seems firmly aimed at the 20 something newlyweds.

I agree there was no taboo, but it wasn't something that very many, if any, of my contemporaries did when they got married.

And it certainly seems to me like a social norm, as pretty much most times I interact with people who don't know me, they assume I'm a Mrs, that my surname is my partners or that his is my surname.

There may have been a period of time when it was becoming less standard, but it seems to me at least that it's going the other way these days.

@Annasgirl
I agree and am very similar, 49, married 23 years, kept own name (as did husband) children double barrelled.

I imagine in the future women will look back at the practice of women dropping their name and becoming known by their husband's names with incredulity. Also, if the practice had never existed, can you imagine a man saying that he had a great idea, 'when we get married, you'll stop having your own name and start using my name'.

I agree there was no taboo, but it wasn't something that very many, if any, of my contemporaries did when they got married.

But like I said, not that long ago, women were expected to give up work once they got married. Now that seems absurd, but that's because millions of women, encouraged by the feminist movement, decided to challenge it.

Women aren't challenging the name-changing convention in anything like the same numbers, even though it's a pretty simple thing to do. The reason must be, as I said above, that a lot of women simply like the idea of taking a man's name. Even now, marriage is seen as an achievement for women, and having a 'married name' is a way to show the world you've snagged yourself a man.

They're talking rubbish. Your name remains as it is unless you change it

It used to be the custom, but increasingly woman are keeping their birth names. Older generations often assume you will change, but it's absolutely your choice.

Yes, exactly. It's a mystery to me why. But then, I'm not married and am not interested/have never been interested in being married so I know I'm already outside what most other people aspire to/do.

I'm 59. My mother married in 1963 (not to my father) and again in 1969. She didn't use either of her husbands' surnames.

Even when i was a teenager in the ‘90’s i had female friends whos life goals were “to get married by 25, couple of kids by 30”

I questioned one of them on why attach such importance to marriage and her response was in not so many words that if she hadn’t found a man to marry her by 25, it meant she was ugly/unloveable/fat/sad and lonely.

I wonder if today’s culture which places so much worth on women’s looks and sexuality, we are going back to marriage validating to a woman she is good looking enough/sexy enough for a man to want her enough to marry her. Especially now sex is freely available, and bobody has to get married, she must be something special if he wants her over all those other girls out there..

So we are going back to ostentatious weddings, rings, changing names and using “mrs”. So everyone knows how special you are.

@whispers I like your responses! I get judged and asked a LOT. I have my own name. I thought name changing would be more equal by now but I don’t think it is.

I found women are often the ones keeping the status quo, they judge me more than men I find, who don’t seem to care. I find some women very defensive over changing their name, and quite critical of me.

@daisy your description of why you changed your name is very honest and interesting.

'It was 100% a legal and financial contract and I've always viewed it as such'

Same here. We're planning to get married or have a civil partnership soon (when they become available to all) and I see it as a legal contract that will protect us both. The romantic, fluffy side of our relationship is something separate as far as I'm concerned

I’d hate to have a different surname to my children. as a reason to change to husbands name. Why wouldn’t you even consider that your kids could have the woman’s surname?

I said this as an argument for women not changing their name!

Maybe read the whole post before misquoting it!

“My birth surname was very close to an antisocial bodily function. Imagine being a primary school kid in that situation.”

Doesn’t seem to have stopped the President if the United States of America.

Someone recently said their friend had been left by a horrible sounding ex but had kept her married name as she'd earned it...thought it was a very strange thing to say!!

Ah yes, Spain
lrc.salemstate.edu/hispanics/other/Naming_Conventions_of_Spanish-Speaking_Cultures.htm
It's more like around 500 million people worldwide.
Portuguese does the same but (I think) with the mother's surname before the father's.

t turns out that rings are compulsory!

No they aren’t . I got married without rings and have never owned nor worn one.

My mother tried to insist they were “how else will people know you’re married” and i’ve met some very rude elderly ladies who’ve seen fit to comment on my lack of wedding ring combined with the presence of a baby.

Vows are also compulsory and I nearly died of embarrassment saying them in front of the registrar and two random witnesses . But it was over quickly

Don’t remember any vows as such either. I had to say “i do” or something to indicate i was agreeing to the marriage contract but that was it.

I've kept my surname the same.

It turns out that rings are compulsory!

No they're not!

There are only a couple of sentences that must be said/asked in a civil marriage, but no rings required. In England, at least.

We did exactly the same - legal contract for financial reasons - with no guests and no fuss. It took less time than signing the contracts for a house purchase (maybe because I read those ones first).

And no, I did not change my surname. Never even contemplated it (and yes I'm in my 40s), but then I never wanted to be Mrs anyone. I'm quite happy being Dr. Myname (and before that Ms Myname). DC have both our surnames and if they have kids, ideally I hope they pass on one of our surnames (whichever) to be paired with a surname from the other parent.