Why change name after marriage??

[hoope]

hi guys,

I use to think that its normal , i mean so what if the lady takes her husband's family name. But then a question rises in my mind why should she ?

Can't she keep her own family name?
What's left for the person if his name is changed , your identity ?

I don't know whats really right but i thought of sharing this with you to know what you think about it

[Scheherazade]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

;)

[hoope]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

;)
OOOOOPS.. am sorry i didn't make it clear..

what i mean by name is that one a lady gets married she takes her husband family name

Lets say she was named Helen Barksman but after marraige she was called Helen Donald .. coz its husband family name ?

Hope its clearer now :redface: !!!

[motherhubbard]

I think it was clear before. You are who you are regardless of your name. You could change your name to my name and it wouldn’t change who you are.

I don’t see what it matters. You have your father’s name then you have your husband’s name. When you marry your husband the two of you make a new family, your family. I suppose it could be argued that the man could take the woman’s name, but traditionally the woman belongs to the man once they are married. I don’t mind the idea of that. I’m proud to wear my husband’s name. I feel like he is the head of the family and that I should wear his name. One could argue that a woman’s last name is not really hers; it belongs to her father or her husband. I’ve been married a good while now and I suppose I feel that I am more my husband’s wife than I am my father’s daughter, and it is this family I’ve built my life around, not my father’s. I’m also my own person and this really is the name that belongs to me.

I bet that sounds totally submissive to a lot of women. It is and I don’t mind. One can be submissive and strong at the same time.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

In our case my wife was thrilled to take my simple name. It was a relief for her since her maiden name was lengthy and complex.

[hoope]

I think it was clear before. You are who you are regardless of your name. You could change your name to my name and it wouldn’t change who you are.

I don’t see what it matters. You have your father’s name then you have your husband’s name. When you marry your husband the two of you make a new family, your family. I suppose it could be argued that the man could take the woman’s name, but traditionally the woman belongs to the man once they are married. I don’t mind the idea of that. I’m proud to wear my husband’s name. I feel like he is the head of the family and that I should wear his name. One could argue that a woman’s last name is not really hers; it belongs to her father or her husband. I’ve been married a good while now and I suppose I feel that I am more my husband’s wife than I am my father’s daughter, and it is this family I’ve built my life around, not my father’s. I’m also my own person and this really is the name that belongs to me.

I bet that sounds totally submissive to a lot of women. It is and I don’t mind. One can be submissive and strong at the same time.


Yea i guess , ur right .

but as for us in the east we don't , the women when she get's married she still keeps her father name.
But can one in the west decide to not take her husband's name , or it is a must ?


thx alot for your participation :-)

[hoope]

In our case my wife was thrilled to take my simple name. It was a relief for her since her maiden name was lengthy and complex.

Yea it was said up .. its a kind a of pride when she takes her husband's name

:-)

thx alot for sharing it

[Themis]

but as for us in the east we don't , the women when she get's married she still keeps her father name.
But can one in the west decide to not take her husband's name , or it is a must ?

Depends where you are, I would say.

In Austria, both women and men can decide what they want to do.

If the couple decides to take the man's name, the woman may use a compound name where she either puts her name in front or after her husband's name.
E.g. the woman's name is Smith, the man's name is Austen.
If they decide on 'Austen', the woman may call herself either 'Austen-Smith' or 'Smith-Austen' (or 'Austen', obviously).

If the couple decides to take the woman's name, it's the man who may choose. The combinations are the same; if he doesn't want a compound name, it'll be 'Smith'.

If both don't want to take another name, the woman may choose to keep her maiden name. Then the husband will also keep his name.

By default, if they don't decide on anything, the woman will get the man's name.

[hoope]

Depends where you are, I would say.

In Austria, both women and men can decide what they want to do.

If the couple decides to take the man's name, the woman may use a compound name where she either puts her name in front or after her husband's name.
E.g. the woman's name is Smith, the man's name is Austen.
If they decide on 'Austen', the woman may call herself either 'Austen-Smith' or 'Smith-Austen' (or 'Austen', obviously).

If the couple decides to take the woman's name, it's the man who may choose. The combinations are the same; if he doesn't want a compound name, it'll be 'Smith'.

If both don't want to take another name, the woman may choose to keep her maiden name. Then the husband will also keep his name.

By default, if they don't decide on anything, the woman will get the man's name.

OOO... that is clear..
its nyc that way ..so they get to choose..

Thx alot Themis for ur feedback i really got it now

Thanks again and have good day

[Maximilianus]

My solution would be very similar to what happens in Austria. I would have no trouble in bearing my wifey's family name, and I believe both parts could take each other's name if they agree to do so, or keep their own names if they can't reach an agreement. However, for the sake of balance I'd prefer the agreement on taking each other's name as a sign of compromise to each other... though on second thought... compromise is much more than just taking someone's family name.

[kasie]

I believe that in UK there is no legal requirement for a woman to take her husband's name on marriage though it is customary and if nothing else avoids confusion as to her status. Then there is the question of the surname of any children of the marriage - many seem to bear an unwealdy hyphenated name if the mother has not taken the father's name.

If a woman is known by her family/maiden name in a professional capacity, she often keeps it after marriage - my married god-daughter still practises Law under her birth name.

[Zee.]

my parents aren't married, and i have both of their names. If they were married, that wouldn't change

[The Comedian]

Historical precedent. Simplicity. And a little homogeneity, I suspect.

[Annamariah]

If I'll ever get married, I would like to share the same surname with my husband, as a sign of unity. As I happen to like my last name very much, I'd try to persuade my husband to take my name instead of me taking his name :banana: (My aunt's husband took her name when they got married.)

In Finland women used to have to take their husband's name, but nowadays a married couple can decide whether they want to take his or her name or if they both want to keep their own names. It's also possible that one takes a combined name.

So if a man called Virtanen marries a woman called Lahti, these are the possibilities

1) both are called Virtanen
2) both are called Lahti
3) he is called Virtanen and she is called Lahti
4) he is called Virtanen and she is called Lahti-Virtanen
5) he is called Virtanen-Lahti and she is called Lahti

And their children's name in each case:

1) they are called Virtanen
2) they are called Lahti
3) they are called either Virtanen or Lahti, the parents have to decide (usually children get their mother's name)
4) they are called Virtanen
5) they are called Lahti

[Niamh]

I believe that in UK there is no legal requirement for a woman to take her husband's name on marriage though it is customary and if nothing else avoids confusion as to her status. Then there is the question of the surname of any children of the marriage - many seem to bear an unwealdy hyphenated name if the mother has not taken the father's name.

If a woman is known by her family/maiden name in a professional capacity, she often keeps it after marriage - my married god-daughter still practises Law under her birth name.

Same over here... obviously! :p Generally the child still takes the fathers name or the double barrel of both names if the mother doesnt take the husbands name, or if they are unmarried. Of course, in a case of a single mam where the father left previously and is unmarried, the kid can have the mothers name.

My sister child has her fathers sirname. They never married but he left when she was still very young. but it can be a bit confusing with her. some of her stuff are under his name Kiernan, others are under King (doctors etc), and some things she has King- Kiernan. :p

Depends where you are, I would say.

In Austria, both women and men can decide what they want to do.

If the couple decides to take the man's name, the woman may use a compound name where she either puts her name in front or after her husband's name.
E.g. the woman's name is Smith, the man's name is Austen.
If they decide on 'Austen', the woman may call herself either 'Austen-Smith' or 'Smith-Austen' (or 'Austen', obviously).

If the couple decides to take the woman's name, it's the man who may choose. The combinations are the same; if he doesn't want a compound name, it'll be 'Smith'.

If both don't want to take another name, the woman may choose to keep her maiden name. Then the husband will also keep his name.

By default, if they don't decide on anything, the woman will get the man's name.

more or less that same here, although i've never known, or heard of a man taking his wifes name over here. i dont think its practiced.

************
Annamariah, i agree with taking the sirname as a sign of unity. :)

[Themis]

more or less that same here, although i've never known, or heard of a man taking his wifes name over here. i dont think its practiced.)

Oh, I don't think it's practiced either. Except maybe if the woman's name is a famous one or she's a noble.

[Niamh]

Oh, I don't think it's practiced either. Except maybe if the woman's name is a famous one or she's a noble.

ah okay... we dont have nobles.... well proper ones... really.

[Maximilianus]

... As I happen to like my last name very much, I'd try to persuade my husband to take my name instead of me taking his name...
What's your last name, Anna? :)

[applepie]

[QUOTE=motherhubbard;768930]
I don’t see what it matters. You have your father’s name then you have your husband’s name. When you marry your husband the two of you make a new family, your family.[QUOTE]

I think you naled it on the head with this:nod:

When you marry and start a family, I think it makes sense to do so with a single last name. I took my husband's when we married, and it never really occured to me to do anything else. He is the head of our household (this does not translate into him having the final say or dictating to the rest of us), but he is the father and husband. I guess it is a bit old fashioned, but he is the man of the house, and I think it makes sense that we all carry his last name.

[Buh4Bee]

One reason to take your husband's name is for practical reasons. If you have children, than the whole family unit has the same name.

I took my husband's name, because it is at the beginning of the alphabet. My maiden name is at the end of the alphabet.

[JBI]

It's cultural - in the cases you are remarking on, lets say, Western "culture" as a broad term to signify traditionally Christian-majority countries, the name represented allegiance. So, for instance, a woman is "traded" so to speak, into her husbands family, and therefore, now being part of her husband's family, and not her father's, she changes her name to indicate essentially who "owns" her (in a loose sense, though the tradition is clearly misogynist). The actual tradition seems to have kept going passed the point when the meaning of it existed, therefore it is still practiced, but it is culturally dependent on those reasons.

it's the sense that a woman is essentially traded from father to son in law, traditionally with minimal consent, though later with pressured consent, and then finally, with, hopefully, her own desires being fore-fronted.

That of course, lead to many feminists, and people acting in the spirit of feminism deciding not to take their husbands last name, or many progressive couples using both last names, either in sequence or as a portmanteau - perhaps rarer would be taking the wife's name for the husband, but I can't think of many cases.

As for me, I think I need a change, so if my wife's last name has a nice ring to it, I'll probably switch to hers - but in terms of meaning, the tradition, unless one is in the most conservative of circles (which isn't to rare in some parts of the world, notably the United States, where there is a huge movement of conservative "family values" driven people) where to an extent the old meanings hold.

In a sense, the last name symbolizes, traditionally, the "ownership" on women's sexuality - at first the father is in control, and says no, and then, traditionally, pays a rich man a healthy sum to take control, all sealed with a ring and contract, marking the legality of the financial agreement. The ring itself, rooted in traditional Jewish culture, functions as an actual monetary exchange for the bride, as rooted in the exchange of money by Abraham's servant in purchasing a wife for Isaac - the Talmud, which perhaps attests to the tradition, in essence argues that a woman is acquired in three ways:

through a contract (made with her family)
through an exchange of money (accepted by the daughter) [note, this is why Jewish wedding bands are made of solid gold, as to mark the exact value of the exchange of money, though, hypothetically, a 20$ bill can be substituted]

And through intercourse [note, the Talmudic scholars modified the Halacha to restrict the acquiring of a bride through intercourse to only people who have fulfilled one of the first two forms, as to eliminate foreseen troubles]

Of course, the last name in traditional Judaism didn't really mean anything besides who one's father was - the taking of the last name of a spouse is not a Jewish tradition - but it holds with the same psychology.

Beyond this though, with the movement following 1980s feminism, where things really began to change, a new direction is acting to replace the traditional forms of possession of women, through other medium.

So, now that the name means nothing, we can say that a "purity ring" or "virginity pledge" is the next step in ensuring that women's sexuality and control of her body is limited to the father-son-in-law relationship of exchange. The name changing, though perhaps frowned upon slightly amongst extremely liberal groups, unless of course there is some ulterior motive, such as an ex-pat trying to sound more like her new country (in such a case, it is common to see first-generation Chinese people interracialy married change their first and last names), may look askance slightly at someone changing their name to their husband's, but on the whole, the significance of the tradition is essentially lost.

[mortalterror]

As for me, I think I need a change, so if my wife's last name has a nice ring to it, I'll probably switch to hers
JBI, you do that, and you have to wear the dress at the wedding.

Which is not to say that I'm entirely against the concept of name changing. Since most marriages and divorces come with a chance to legally change your name for free, Spartacus Hemingway has always had a nice ring to it. Rembrandt Q. Einstein? Superman Rockefeller? Max Power? What do you think would be a good fit?

[JBI]

JBI, you do that, and you have to wear the dress at the wedding.

Which is not to say that I'm entirely against the concept of name changing. Since most marriages and divorces come with a chance to legally change your name for free, Spartacus Hemingway has always had a nice ring to it. Rembrandt Q. Einstein? Superman Rockefeller? Max Power? What do you think would be a good fit?

IT has nothing to do with anything - I'm not particularly fond of my last name, so I see no reason why I shouldn't change it, assuming the situation suggests itself for free. As for taking someone else's name - as I have said, if it has a nice ring to it, why not? I only hope that you are as much a part of your wife's family as she is of yours...

[Mariamosis]

In the US you have a choice in which anything goes, including making up a completely different name. However, JBI has an excellent point when referring to "family values" in the US.

I would prefer for my fiance to take my last name due to some disgraces throughout the core of his family, however, we would never hear the end of it. It would be viewed here as an insult to his family (which it would be) but also as the male figure not taking the alpha role and therefore adopting a much more submissive role. (which would more than likely be viewed as a joke)

In other US areas this probably wouldn't always be the case, but we are in a fairly rural area where, unfortunately, there are numerous traditional conservatives.

[hoope]

IT has nothing to do with anything - I'm not particularly fond of my last name, so I see no reason why I shouldn't change it, assuming the situation suggests itself for free. As for taking someone else's name - as I have said, if it has a nice ring to it, why not? I only hope that you are as much a part of your wife's family as she is of yours...

JBI.. me too am nto fond of my last name .. i really think of changing it.. So why not ???



It's cultural - in the cases you are remarking on, lets say, Western "culture" as a broad term to signify traditionally Christian-majority countries, the name represented allegiance. So, for instance, a woman is "traded" so to speak, into her husbands family, and therefore, now being part of her husband's family, and not her father's, she changes her name to indicate essentially who "owns" her (in a loose sense, though the tradition is clearly misogynist). The actual tradition seems to have kept going passed the point when the meaning of it existed, therefore it is still practiced, but it is culturally dependent on those reasons.

and i liked the concept that you added up there .It is true that in most christian countries that became known and became a prominent aspect when one gets married .