Changing last name after marriage: Who takes whose?
- Thread starter SeerSGB
- Start date
Where I'm from most every woman keeps her name after marriage so if I ever do marry I'm keeping mine.
My fiancee is going to take mine. No, it is not out of an outdated traditation. She is progressive, liberal and a feminist. But her surname is pretty common so she thinks her surname is too common and "boring". I mean, I've been seeing her surname everywhere since we got together, including an arctile in a magazine while at the doctor's office this morning. So she is going to take my surname. I have never seen my surname outside of my family. It is an uncommon variant of a more common German surname.
I'm pretty sure your name doesn't affect the amount of "separation" between you. Anyway, if that were the case shouldn't you have the same first names then too?
My girlfriend would like a combination of her last name and my last name. I don;t; I just like my last name. Somewhere I'd like my children to have my last name as well, but then again, her last name sounds so much better.
Michael Chris said:
I'm so confused!
I actually started a thread on this subject a few months ago --with a poll and everything!-- as I was a bit curious about how people around here viewed the subject. I also included options for people in gay marriages, because a) they're legal where I live (as they should be) and will be legal in many more places in the future, and b) I wanted to see if the concept of taking a partner's name extended to any homosexual marriages. You can find the thread here.
For me, I don't think I'm likely to get married, but if I did, it wouldn't really matter to me what last name my wife decided to go by; her life, her name. Actually, I'd kind of hope that she kept her own last name, because I think the tradition of a wife taking her husband's surname is archaic and basically just a holdover from times when a woman was regarded as little more than a man's property (first her father's, then her husband's, with the name change signifying a "change of ownership"). Having said that, if, for some reason, my wife felt it was important for her to take my last name, I wouldn't tell her "no"... but I doubt I'd marry someone that traditional anyway.
I'm pretty sure your name doesn't affect the amount of "separation" between you. Anyway, if that were the case shouldn't you have the same first names then too?
I agree with this, but at the same time, taking your spouses name doesn't make you any less of an individual as others above have suggested.
As progressive and liberal as I am, I still like the traditional way. However I woudn't change my name, so it wouldn't be right if I felt someone else must do it. Luckily my girlfriend hates her last name for personal reasons, so she absolutely wants to take my name.
I just couldn't imagine changing my name. I know "a rose by any other name...", but it's still very much apart of who I am.
Just for efficiency it makes sense for all family members to have the same last name. It certainly makes writing invitations easier. And if you have to choose one it's best to go with the guys because following the tradition makes it easier to trace ancestry. At least this way you can more easily trace one rather than neither (if you switched at random).
MC has a more religious view of marriage while I come from a more partnership angle. Both are, of course, perfectly legitimate.
I might change both my given and surname just to confuse things.
Mooch, basically for me it comes down to my culture. Since the joining of names is culturally part of the process whereby two become one I think it's an indication of commitment to the other person. I mean, I'd be seriously crazy if I valued my name over my would be spouse. Of course if my wife was to come from a different culture where the changing of names was not part of the process I'd be perfectly accepting of that as well, but for the purposes of the conversation I'm assuming that my wife would be the same culture that I am.
Exactly. Well, I'd argue that my view is just as much of a partnership, but exactly!
I have a rather long and unwieldy last name. I wouldn't expect a woman to want to take it. I will definitely have no right to be offended if she doesn't. (Well, I wouldn't have that right even if my name was Smith or Jones, but work with me here. 
)
I would consider taking her name. I used to think it would be insulting to my family (my parents are, as far as I know, the last surviving members of our family with our last name), but then again, isn't forcing a woman to take her husband's name an equal insult to *her* family? So I should shut up about that as well.
)I would consider taking her name. I used to think it would be insulting to my family (my parents are, as far as I know, the last surviving members of our family with our last name), but then again, isn't forcing a woman to take her husband's name an equal insult to *her* family? So I should shut up about that as well.
Last edited:
I think both the husband and wife should have the last name. I mean you're supposed to be "one family" not two individuals anymore.
Now, tradition has the woman taking the man's name but I think there's room to do it the otherway around. I think it'd be far more logical for both parties to make a new last name, possibly one born of an combination of last names.
Now, tradition has the woman taking the man's name but I think there's room to do it the otherway around. I think it'd be far more logical for both parties to make a new last name, possibly one born of an combination of last names.
That's one person's definition of marriage, not everyone's.
Marry me.
What's the point of marriage, then, if not to work together as one unit?
What difference does a last name make anyway? It's just a name and it's not like we're living in the great times of old where family names mean anything.
"Oh! You're forty-fourth generation Timberlake? Wow, your family has great honor, sir!"
Whatever.
