What are your thoughts on changing your last name after marriage?

The Masculinist

Male here, I would expect any future wife to change theirs. Women have been doing it for hundreds of years-if it aint broken, why fix it? Also, I believe it shows devotion in a traditional sense.

Eeden

The Masculinist wrote: »

Male here, I would expect any future wife to change theirs. Women have been doing it for hundreds of years-if it aint broken, why fix it? Also, I believe it shows devotion in a traditional sense.

... please don't bite, anyone!

The Masculinist

Eeden wrote: »

... please don't bite, anyone!

hahaha! I'm being deadly serious! To each their own though, if both partners are happy with it then do whatever feels right!

Eeden

Eeden wrote: »

... please don't bite, anyone!

Mod

If you have an issue with a post, report it.

Mars Bar

The Masculinist wrote: »

hahaha! I'm being deadly serious! To each their own though, if both partners are happy with it then do whatever feels right!

And if she doesn't feel it's right to changer her name to yours, how would you handle it?

Your first post and second post contradict each other.

The Masculinist

Mars Bar wrote: »

And if she doesn't feel it's right to changer her name to yours, how would you handle it?

Your first post and second post contradict each other.

Hi there.

I have broached this subject with my current partner and previous serious relationships. All have been happy to take my name to date should we get married. Perhaps it is the type of woman I attract/I go for. If a prospective wife refused to change her surname, it would be a negative in my books unless she had a valid reason for not taking it. I am not sure why women want to stick with some traditions (white dress, engagement ring) while deviating from others (surname issue), hence, I generally think that a woman I would marry should take my surname. While I wouldn't end a relationship over it, it may contribute to other negatives which would ultimately lead me to end our relationship/not propose. I wouldn't regard it as a deal breaker, but I would regard it as a potential show of lack of devotion and certainly it would make me more happy if she took my name.

My second post is not a contradiction, it simply states that should other couple not wish for their wife to change her surname then that's good for them and I respect that, to each their own-we all have different opinions.

lazygal

What about women who don't wear a white dress etc? It would have been a major red flag if a partner was dogmatic about me changing my name. Its not the norm for me as my mother never changed her, and as it turned out neither did my mother in law. I'd honestly wonder if a man would be controlling in other areas if he expected me to change my name. I'd be worried he'd want to dictate other aspects of our relationship too. Luckily my husband didn't even think of me changing my first or last name just because we got married. And for our legal marriage I wore a blue dress.


Eta what's with devotion? Why do you require signs of it from a woman you're married too? Do you lack devotion because you'll never change your name? Very odd word to use in the context of marriage.

Scarinae

The Masculinist wrote: »

I wouldn't regard it as a deal breaker, but I would regard it as a potential show of lack of devotion and certainly it would make me more happy if she took my name.

I'm just wondering, would you consider taking your wife's surname? And if not, why not?

Lyaiera

The Masculinist wrote: »

Hi there.

I have broached this subject with my current partner and previous serious relationships. All have been happy to take my name to date should we get married. Perhaps it is the type of woman I attract/I go for. If a prospective wife refused to change her surname, it would be a negative in my books unless she had a valid reason for not taking it. I am not sure why women want to stick with some traditions (white dress, engagement ring) while deviating from others (surname issue), hence, I generally think that a woman I would marry should take my surname. While I wouldn't end a relationship over it, it may contribute to other negatives which would ultimately lead me to end our relationship/not propose. I wouldn't regard it as a deal breaker, but I would regard it as a potential show of lack of devotion and certainly it would make me more happy if she took my name.

My second post is not a contradiction, it simply states that should other couple not wish for their wife to change her surname then that's good for them and I respect that, to each their own-we all have different opinions.

Such a respectful attitude. If a man said I had to show him devotion in ways such as taking his name if we married it would be a serious negative in the relationship. I would seriously consider breaking up with him and I would wonder why I would ever have dated someone who disrespects my identity.

Malari

I don't understand the all-or-none thing with traditions when it comes to weddings. Would you also expect your future wife's parents to pay for it all, and for her to quit her job after you marry?

At Christmas do you insist if you have the traditional turkey (or should that be goose?) that you also must have a real tree and go carol singing?

Surely it's ok to pick and choose the other way round, too. So if she does want to take your name you'd have a problem if she wasn't also wearing a white dress?

jaja321

Devotion?! Is agreeing to marry someone and to spend the rest of your life with them not enough devotion? Why is it necessary for someone to change their name to show devotion?

Thankfully its never even crossed my partners mind that I would take his name.

eviltwin

The Masculinist wrote: »

Hi there.

I have broached this subject with my current partner and previous serious relationships. All have been happy to take my name to date should we get married. Perhaps it is the type of woman I attract/I go for. If a prospective wife refused to change her surname, it would be a negative in my books unless she had a valid reason for not taking it. I am not sure why women want to stick with some traditions (white dress, engagement ring) while deviating from others (surname issue), hence, I generally think that a woman I would marry should take my surname. While I wouldn't end a relationship over it, it may contribute to other negatives which would ultimately lead me to end our relationship/not propose. I wouldn't regard it as a deal breaker, but I would regard it as a potential show of lack of devotion and certainly it would make me more happy if she took my name.

My second post is not a contradiction, it simply states that should other couple not wish for their wife to change her surname then that's good for them and I respect that, to each their own-we all have different opinions.

Why the need for validation? Either you love each other or you don't. Having a different surname to your wife/husband doesn't make you any less married does it? Your still a family just as much as the ones who share a name.

Lack of devotion? Never heard such crap in my life.

I am married to the man I've been with since I was a teenager, I've been with him through thick and thin, through illness, stress, unemployment, children..you name it we've walked with each other shoulder to shoulder every step of the way. I love the bones of that man and he feels the same about me. We prove our devotion every day by being together and working our way through life. Having different surnames doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

I also respect the rights of those who wish to change but I would be seriously worried about someone who felt that a name is an indicator of love or commitment. That seems a very insecure way of looking at it.

Vojera

I'm in a civil partnership so there isn't a tradition for us.

We never considered double-barreling because our names don't go together. We briefly considered a surname mash-up, but realised that our families wouldn't take that seriously. In the end we both kept our own (paternal) names. Both our fathers have passed away, so it's nice to acknowledge them that way. Lots of our friends send our post to a diminutive mash-up, though, which I like.

As an aside, a straight couple I know who married recently both double-barreled their names. I thought that was nice as I thought it made them more "equal" in my mind.

Lyaiera

I just want to point out that I never want "devotion." It seems a little creepy (really creepy.) Some of the things I'd like in marriage are love, respect, understanding and passion. If one of those falls away I don't want anyone who is "devoted" and doesn't care. I don't want someone who will stay with me if I don't feel and express those things with them, and I don't want someone who would expect me to stay with them if they don't show those things. I want to marry a person capable of respecting themselves and respecting me.

White dress and rings are relatively recent 'traditions' anyway. I'm pretty sure plenty of women with particular titles or family names historically did not change names either

XxMCRxBabyxX

bluewolf wrote: »

White dress and rings are relatively recent 'traditions' anyway. I'm pretty sure plenty of women with particular titles or family names historically did not change names either

Queen Elizabeth II for one!

It was common in major families that wanted to carry on the family name but only had daughters to do so.

Neyite

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Queen Elizabeth II for one!

But it apparently didn't go down well with auld Phil

Elizabeth’s father, George VI, was born into the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but during World War I the family name was changed to Windsor amid anti-German sentiment. Similarly, her husband Prince Philip dropped his father’s Germanic surname, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, and adopted that of his maternal grandparents, Mountbatten, during their engagement. But when Elizabeth ascended the throne, her mother and Prime Minister Winston Churchill did everything in their power to prevent the queen and her line from becoming the House of Mountbatten. They succeeded, but several years later Elizabeth proclaimed that some of her descendants would carry the name Mountbatten-Windsor—probably in an attempt to placate her fuming husband.

http://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-queen-elizabeth-ii

Still, since she doesn't require a driver licence or a passport, she probably had nothing to change her surname on.

sunshine and showers

Neyite wrote: »

Still, since she doesn't require a driver licence or a passport, she probably had nothing to change her surname on.

All she needs to carry is a stamp.

Neyite

sunshine and showers wrote: »

All she needs to carry is a stamp.

Or a pound coin!

Well if it's good enough for a queen :cool:

Neyite

bluewolf wrote: »

Well if it's good enough for a queen :cool:

Aww, they could have double-barrelled it!
Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg kinda has a bit of a ring to it!

Bit of a fcuker to sign when collecting the child benefit at the post office though!

The Masculinist

Lyaiera wrote: »

Such a respectful attitude. If a man said I had to show him devotion in ways such as taking his name if we married it would be a serious negative in the relationship. I would seriously consider breaking up with him and I would wonder why I would ever have dated someone who disrespects my identity.

Ditto. I wouldn't consider dating such a woman in the first place.

eviltwin

The Masculinist wrote: »

Ditto. I wouldn't consider dating such a woman in the first place.

I doubt you'll have that conversation on the first date so if you meet someone who ticks all the boxes and then she mentions keeping her own name you'll what? Dump her? Why is it so important? Are you one of those guys who has very specific ideas about the role of a woman within a relationship by any chance?

The Masculinist

I don't understand why women regard this as such an attack on their identity. Plenty of strong women have taken their husbands name, Margaret Thatcher and Mary McAleese to name but a few. I believe taking your husbands surname is akin to wearing your ring. It shows your bond to your husband and the link with his family. Marriage is a compromise in many respects, you share the same house, share the work in maintaining that household and so forth. I don't see why taking your husband's surname is such a major issue particularly considering it has been going on for many many years.

The Masculinist

eviltwin wrote: »

I doubt you'll have that conversation on the first date so if you meet someone who ticks all the boxes and then she mentions keeping her own name you'll what? Dump her? Why is it so important? Are you one of those guys who has very specific ideas about the role of a woman within a relationship by any chance?

The tone of the post suggests she would have an attitude I would find unappealing. I'd imagine she may feel the exact same way about me.

stinkle

The Masculinist wrote: »

I don't understand why women regard this as such an attack on their identity. Plenty of strong women have taken their husbands name, Margaret Thatcher and Mary McAleese to name but a few. I believe taking your husbands surname is akin to wearing your ring. It shows your bond to your husband and the link with his family. Marriage is a compromise in many respects, you share the same house, share the work in maintaining that household and so forth. I don't see why taking your husband's surname is such a major issue.

What are your thoughts on men changing their name after marriage then?

eviltwin

The Masculinist wrote: »

I don't understand why women regard this as such an attack on their identity. Plenty of strong women have taken their husbands name, Margaret Thatcher and Mary McAleese to name but a few. I believe taking your husbands surname is akin to wearing your ring. It shows your bond to your husband and the link with his family. Marriage is a compromise in many respects, you share the same house, share the work in maintaining that household and so forth. I don't see why taking your husband's surname is such a major issue.

No, that's what it means to YOU. We don't wear wedding rings, we don't have the same name...so what? I'm with that man for life, I have no interest in anyone else. I have a link with his family through him regardless of names. My own name is my name, its what I am used to, its what my friends and family have called me for over 30 years, to change would just seem weird for me. I have had mail sent addressed to Mrs X and I don't recognise that person, she's not me and never will be.

If you don't see it as a major issue then fine, I hope you meet a woman who agrees with you but just consider giving up your own name for a moment and how hard that might be for you and you might have some idea where we are coming from.

lazygal

The Masculinist wrote: »

I don't understand why women regard this as such an attack on their identity. Plenty of strong women have taken their husbands name, Margaret Thatcher and Mary McAleese to name but a few. I believe taking your husbands surname is akin to wearing your ring. It shows your bond to your husband and the link with his family. Marriage is a compromise in many respects, you share the same house, share the work in maintaining that household and so forth. I don't see why taking your husband's surname is such a major issue particularly considering it has been going on for many many years.

Not every couple wears rings. Neither my parents nor my inlaws do, and among our siblings and wider circles its a mixed bag as to who wants a physical symbol of marriage.
What about displaying the bloody sheets after the wedding night, it went on for years? An appeal to tradition as the only reason to do something isn't the best argument. Especially since for many people, as is the case for my parents, it isn't actually a tradition at all. Why can't you change your name and create a bond that way? Anyway, if it takes a name to bond you as a family that's a pretty shakey start to married life.

eviltwin

Its a very tenuous bond. You could take your husbands name but still be a bad wife. Its not a guarantee of a close or loving relationship.

Malari

You see, Masculinist, it's not about the fact that plenty of independent, strong women have changed their names on marriage. In fact, I can only think of one married woman I know personally who kept her name. However I have no doubt that in all cases the woman made the choice freely, even if she discussed it with her husband as a couple. I'm sure there were a few women who thought long and hard about it, and some who didn't give it a second thought. I'm sure there were a few husbands who really quite wanted their wives to change their name and were delighted when they did. Delighted as in getting a gift you were hoping for. Not satisfied as if you were getting what is due to you by right.

But you seem to be coming from the point that it is right and proper to change your name because...tradition. And that really this is something that you have an equal say in. I think most women here would not feel that way and that's why there is so much reaction to your post.

sunshine and showers

Neyite wrote: »

Aww, they could have double-barrelled it!
Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg kinda has a bit of a ring to it!

Bit of a fcuker to sign when collecting the child benefit at the post office though!

It'd actually be Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, or Elizabeth A.M. Mountbatten-Windsor. :P

Actually, it'd be none of the above, because those who hold the title HM or HRH actually don't have (official) surnames. All her non-direct descendants use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor - so she didn't let anyone just take her hubbys' name!

Yes, I know too much about the British monarchy.