Taking a mans surname

Why does it heed to be challenged, when it has never been compulsory to do it? Some women don't change their surname or retain their existing surname in a double barrelled version with their husband's surname. Their kids also often have double barrelled surnames as well
 
Ok, I’ve never looked into it so I assumed it was a requirement. So I wonder why women still happily do it.
 
Matesrates said:
Ok, I’ve never looked into it so I assumed it was a requirement. So I wonder why women still happily do it.
Click to expand...
Some don’t, as said above.
I would have done, if I’d married when younger and more naive.
If I married now, which I won’t, then I wouldn’t because I feel like I’d lose a part of my own identity that I feel I’ve only recently established myself !
Each to their own.
 
bfcpete said:
Why does it heed to be challenged, when it has never been compulsory to do it? Some women don't change their surname or retain their existing surname in a double barrelled version with their husband's surname. Their kids also often have double barrelled surnames as well
Click to expand...
Yes. I’ve known blokes taking their wife’s name in the double barrelled style.

(Cue a few heart tremors from some on here).
 
Women continue to do it because they want to, or feel its expected as a tradition. I think most people know they have a choice these days.
Women are no longer the property of their husbands, no longer need to be "given away" by their previous owner. A double barrelled name or even both taking the wife's name are all available options.
 
Double-barrelling can become very difficult as the generations move on.
In my case, I kept my own surname and asked my wife to combine her maiden name with my surname - she'd already been married twice and when we met she had her second husband's surname (which her son retains).
The whole thing goes back to times when women became chattels of their husband. As we moved to more enlightened times this obligation on her part became met with an obligation on his part to maintain the wife and children.
We've moved on again and at the moment tradition holds sway with some, not with others. Hey ho.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Double-barrelling can become very difficult as the generations move on.
In my case, I kept my own surname and asked my wife to combine her maiden name with my surname - she'd already been married twice and when we met she had her second husband's surname (which her son retains).
The whole thing goes back to times when women became chattels of their husband. As we moved to more enlightened times this obligation on her part became met with an obligation on his part to maintain the wife and children.
We've moved on again and at the moment tradition holds sway with some, not with others. Hey ho.
Click to expand...
Indeed...nobody seems to think what happens in the future when "John Wilson-Smith wants to marry Katie Johnson-Jones"...
Do they become Mr and Mrs Wilson-Smith-Johnson-Jones?? And then their children...
A stupid modern trend (imho 🤣)
Agree on ONE surname I say...either the husband's OR the wife's.
 
BigHandsOliverKahn said:
With less and less traditions being carried out and hardly anyone regularly going to church, what's the main point of marriage nowadays? Is it just financial or is there more to it than that?
Click to expand...
I suppose it’s a statement, in front of friends and family, of the commitment a couple have made to each other.

On the financial question, certainly there are tax advantages between marriage and “being together”. Not sure what the position is these days between marriage and civil partnerships; probably not much but I don’t really know.
 
My wife and I married last year and she took my name, but it wasn't easy from an 'admin' point of view. There were about 35 organisations that had to be informed, a dozen or so demanded a copy of the marriage certificate -difficult we had the original and only two certified copies - but they relented, accepting a photocopy or a scan, but only because of Covid. There are still business popping up who we have forgotten we need to inform.

In time we got most things sorted, the most difficulty she has had has been with the US tech firms, Microsoft, Google, who refused to change the name which had to remain on a primary account. To change that meant the loss of anything on the cloud. She eventually set up subsidiary accounts but it still defaults to her old name from time to time. Interestingly while the tech giants were a real pain and uncooperative, it was plain sailing with the maligned UK public sector; DWP, NHS etc. Perhaps more people hang on to their 'single' names in the States?

People might retain their name, some by choice and some because it's now too difficult, more so than it used to be!
 
I think the concept of the family unit where mum dad and the kids all share the same surname is still very much alive. Traditionally this has been the mans name.
As long as no one tries to influence the decision then just do what suits your particular preferences.
 
Like anything else, as long as the decision belongs to the individual without coercion or pressure then it’s a case of doing what’s right for you.
As an aside I wouldn’t want to take a mans name, as stated, as I don’t want to lose my identity.
Also.....I wouldn’t want a man taking my name either as then he’s losing his own identity and stealing mine 🥴
I think I’m possibly quite precious about losing that sense of ‘self’ but again, it’s each to their own entirely.
 
20 odd years ago, me and the now MrsTSS had a conversation about this.

I was completely at ease with her either taking my name or sticking with her own as she was professionally getting quite a reputation and it's one of those things which can sometimes get lost, or taking hers.

It was early enough in her career that she chose to take mine and wouldn't countenance me using hers - possibly because her own mum and dad divorced.

It's a bit of tradition, and gives a public perception of being a family, which is no bad thing; equally given how many marriages fail these days it might well change to save on the future paperwork.
 
Lala said:
Some don’t, as said above.
I would have done, if I’d married when younger and more naive.
If I married now, which I won’t, then I wouldn’t because I feel like I’d lose a part of my own identity that I feel I’ve only recently established myself !
Each to their own.
Click to expand...
Lala did you sea a woman on This morning her name was Di something…..she married a Mr Coke…she became Di Coke 😂
 
BlackpoolWolves said:
Indeed...nobody seems to think what happens in the future when "John Wilson-Smith wants to marry Katie Johnson-Jones"...
Do they become Mr and Mrs Wilson-Smith-Johnson-Jones?? And then their children...
A stupid modern trend (imho 🤣)
Agree on ONE surname I say...either the husband's OR the wife's.
Click to expand...
The Spanish tradition on double barreled family names has already dealt with this.

The husband and wife keep the names they were born with. The children take one of the surnames of each parent, usually the paternal one.
 
bfcpete said:
Why does it heed to be challenged, when it has never been compulsory to do it? Some women don't change their surname or retain their existing surname in a double barrelled version with their husband's surname. Their kids also often have double barrelled surnames as well
Click to expand...
What happens when the double barrelled sibling marries someone else also double barrelled, do they become quadruple barrelled?

I think they should.
 
There's going to be a fair few marriages in this next generation of 20somethings where both parties have a double barrelled name. So....4 surnames?
 
Doesn't really matter anymore, obviously the taking of a surname was all about keeping that surname going. Along with the desire to have a son to keep the family blood line going. Has been known back in the good old days if the good lady couldn't produce a lad, then "Off with her head" and a new younger good lady put in place.
But as in my opening line "Doesn't matter anymore". There is no male or female, if My son, my DNA and blood line decides he's a tin of processed mixed fruit then my family line is going to legally end. Should my son pregnate a woman and have a child then my DNA and blood line will still continue. However if He and his spouse are non binary and see themselves as "A processed tin of mix fruits and A bouquet of roses". Then the birth certificate is going to lose my surname and the last trace of me on earth....
 
Seasider1 said:
Doesn't really matter anymore, obviously the taking of a surname was all about keeping that surname going. Along with the desire to have a son to keep the family blood line going. Has been known back in the good old days if the good lady couldn't produce a lad, then "Off with her head" and a new younger good lady put in place.
But as in my opening line "Doesn't matter anymore". There is no male or female, if My son, my DNA and blood line decides he's a tin of processed mixed fruit then my family line is going to legally end. Should my son pregnate a woman and have a child then my DNA and blood line will still continue. However if He and his spouse are non binary and see themselves as "A processed tin of mix fruits and A bouquet of roses". Then the birth certificate is going to lose my surname and the last trace of me on earth....
Click to expand...
Wow!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top