Did you or will you change your name after marriage?

[jundp 191]

Interesting responses to these questions about name changing.

Have any husband's changed their name to the wife's name? If it's really not about an old tradition, then why don't we see more guys changing their names... other than the fact that it's a pain in the butt to do so.

Janny

One of my good friends hyphenated his name and his wife's. She died 5 years ago and he is now remarried and he had his name changed back to just his surname. It didn't feel it would be respectful to his current wife to keep his first wife's name. Though his children (from the first marriage) have the hyphenated name. His current wife didn't pressure him to make the change.

[sweetpink 1]

My husband could barely pronounced my filipino middle and family name, I don't expect others can do either, so, I am now bearing my married name.

Edited July 7, 2008 by sweetpink

[~krakatoa~ 27]

I loved my maiden name but I preferred to be Mrs. R. I did it for love!

[Illinois 0]

Have not, and will not change my last name. Why? Because I am an old-fashioned woman. Traditionally, many women in my culture retain their family names. I will not do something my mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother did not do. LOL.....

Seriously, it has nothing to do with respecting your SO etc etc. This is who I am, what I have been, and will be professionally. Besides, I have a fairly uncommon last name I have no wish to give up. If folks in the US have trouble pronouncing it, it is their problem (they have to just pronounce everything as seen!), not mine The two of us are in agreement about this, and that is all there is to it.

[~BahAmerican~ 0]

Great topic!

I will definitely carry my Husband's last name...Because I am proud of being his wife(gushes & swoon) so this is not an issue for me or my family.

My surname is very plain jane and funny thing is my husband has a very long Irish last name.So folks always botch it up(badly) LOL.

My husband always teases me about it "like are you sure you want to take on my last name?!".I told him yes it's alright cause I

will have to politely correct them hehe.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

Besides, I have a fairly uncommon last name I have no wish to give up. If folks in the US have trouble pronouncing it, it is their problem (they have to just pronounce everything as seen!), not mine The two of us are in agreement about this, and that is all there is to it.

[pegbert64 0]

I think it's up to each person to decide what and why. My maiden name, although not complicated, was NEVER pronounced correctly.... I'd say it, and people would say "What was that? Can you spell it? Spell it again??" So when I married my first husband, I was thrilled that he had a *normal*, recognizable surname. When we divorced, I kept his name, for a couple of reasons:

1) being adopted as an infant, a maiden name ties me to nothing... it's just a name they put on bills. It never had any ancestoral ties for me, so I never felt any sentimental reason to keep it.

2) my *new* name was so much easier than my maiden name

3) I don't believe in going "backward" in life.... it would almost be like pretending my first marriage never happened. Well, for right or wrong, it did.... and it was a chapter in the story of Me. Always moving forward!

So when it came to changing my name with this marriage, I had a couple of options:

1) go back to my maiden name (see above)

2) keep my ex-husband's name

3) take my new husband's name

It was a no-brainer for me, and made him very happy to boot. I don't feel that I've given up anything at all.... I'm me because of who I am, not because of what name I use. Probably has a lot to do with the adoption thing; at my age, I'm very comfortable with my unattachment to a family history, but I also respect and really admire those who love and cherish their heritage!

Very interesting thread!!!

[Jan and Steve 0]

Check out these interesting links on the topic of name change after marriage.

http://www.slate.com/id/2097231

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Stone

http://www.lucystoneleague.org/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2..._last_name.html

http://www.tangomag.com/20085623/the-name-game.html/1

[Jan and Steve 0]

A little known fact is that if Miss Jane Doe marries Mr. John Smith and KEEPS her name, she is still "Mrs. John Smith". The MRS part means "wife of John Smith".

So, she could be known as:

• Jane Doe (her NAME)
• Ms. Jane Doe (generic TITLE followed by her NAME)
• Mrs. John Smith or Mrs. Smith (her TITLE)

"Mrs. Jane Doe" or "Mrs. Jane Smith" or "Mrs. Doe" are all incorrect ... it implies she is the wife of ... herself!

Though you do see it quite common for people to refer to themselves as "Mrs. Jane Smith" when they change their last names.

Wikipedia has more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs.#Usage

--

Steve

[Dr. Obvious 49]

It was a no-brainer for me, and made him very happy to boot. I don't feel that I've given up anything at all.... I'm me because of who I am, not because of what name I use. Probably has a lot to do with the adoption thing; at my age, I'm very comfortable with my unattachment to a family history, but I also respect and really admire those who love and cherish their heritage!

Very interesting thread!!!

I am a little confused by this because my biological grandmother got rid of my mother, regardless of the reason, that part of the family is dead. When my grandparents adopted my mother, I feel that I inherited everything that went with it to replace the hole left by my biological grandparents. That is part of what adoption is. They may not be my genetic ancestors, but they are my blood regardless. Their history became mine.

If you go far enough back in my paternal line though my grandfather to the 1600s, my last name isn't even my last name. My bio ancestors changed it when they came here to something completely different. But after 400 years, I hardly think it makes that big of a difference.

It's just my two cents.

[pegbert64 0]

They may not be my genetic ancestors, but they are my blood regardless. Their history became mine.

And there is the difference.... even though they were not your direct/natural parents, they were blood relatives, so their line is your line somewhere down the line - if that makes sense!? Or are you saying that they are NOT actually biological relatives, but you treat them as such? I'm a bit confused. In either case, I like your story. I was born in the day when single young women were sent off to have the baby in secrecy. I do know my "unidentifying" information, and that I was a "love child", and that my father probably never even knew I existed, since he was married (to someone else). People often aske me when I found out that I was adopted.... I don't ever remember "finding out".... I just always knew I was, as were my two brothers (my sister is my parents' only natural child). It was never a big deal, never anything to be ashamed of or angry about. My birth mother gave me life, and then did what was probably the hardest thing she's ever had to do in her life. I have nothing but gratitude and respect for her, whoever she is. But I also have no desire to meet her - I don't need to, there is nothing missing, no "holes" to be filled, at least for me. One of my brothers met his birth mom, and sees her on a regular basis - she's even spent holidays with our parents! In his case, he felt he needed to find her, and it turned out it was the right thing for both of them. On the other hand, I've known people who's families were shattered when a birth child showed up some 40 years later, full of spite and anger for being "tossed away". So, I don't know.... Adoption is such an interesting topic, and I enjoying talking about it (obviously! ) Alas, I'm veering off topic.....

The point regarding surnames is that, because of my experience and view of adoption, I have never felt "attached" to any specific name as part of my identity, so it was a very easy and natural choice to take my husband's name when we married.

Edited July 8, 2008 by pegbert64

[Dr. Obvious 49]

My definition of family is a bit deeper than who my DNA is shared with.

Will write more in a second, I accidently hit the submit button.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Wacken

[Chocolot 0]

After becoming involved in tracing my ancestors I wish more women had retained their maiden names or at least put them into their childrens names as in "Mary Taylor Brown". It would make tracing the maternal side of the family so much easier as although we may know our mothers and grandmothers family names it usually doesnt go back further than 2 generations.

When I wanted to revert to my maiden name (I felt I needed to be me again, when my marriage was crumbling) many people tried to make me show divorce papers or a court paper, however when I researched it I found that I had never given up my maiden name and had every right to use it. It was a matter of switching it in one place along with my birth certificate and then everything else fell into place.

After going to the trouble of getting 2 passports and all my other identifying documents in my original name, I had no wish to change all over again. I like my husbands name and I respect and admire him and I dont need to have my identity linked to his with more official documents than a marriage certificate to show that, being his Mrs is enough.

I think for some women it works really well to change, for others it works to retain their family name.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

My grandparents adopted my mother and my uncle mostly because it was what was expected of them at the time. It was weird to say the least for a married couple not to have children and my grandmother could not due to a hysterectomy she had to have at an early age. They were also adopted to some extent because my grandfather was the last of his line. It wasn't questioned that they and we were the continuation of his line regardless of if we were biologically his or not. Genetics, that was not really the point. The point was, someone was alive to carry the name and the family history. Therefore, his blood is my blood (in a different sense of the word than straight genetics), my line. My own biological grandparents couldn't be bothered (I don't care about the reason), so I don't care. They are not my line or heritage.

I carry the name of my father, but generally only do it out of respect for my now deceased paternal grandparents. My own father was an azz and my life is better off without him. If it were my father that were adopted, I really can't think it would be any different.

[pegbert64 0]

My grandparents adopted my mother and my uncle mostly because it was what was expected of them at the time. It was weird to say the least for a married couple not to have children and my grandmother could not due to a hysterectomy she had to have at an early age. They were also adopted to some extent because my grandfather was the last of his line. It wasn't questioned that they and we were the continuation of his line regardless of if we were biologically his or not. Genetics, that was not really the point. The point was, someone was alive to carry the name and the family history. Therefore, his blood is my blood (in a different sense of the word than straight genetics), my line. My own biological grandparents couldn't be bothered (I don't care about the reason), so I don't care. They are not my line or heritage.

I carry the name of my father, but generally only do it out of respect for my now deceased paternal grandparents. My own father was an azz and my life is better off without him. If it were my father that were adopted, I really can't think it would be any different.

Ahhh, OK. I wasn't sure if your mother (and uncle) were blood relatives of your grandparents (like when a relative will adopt the child/children of a sibling/child who can't care for them, etc) But I think you're saying that there was no *physical* connection, but once they were adopted they were considered their own children, hence the name/line contiued. Correct? I actually had a friend in highschool was was adopted (no genetic relation whatsoever) into an Italian family. She was the only one with blonde hair and freckles, and when people would ask her about it, she'd say "We're from the south of Italy"..... which I always found really weird. But I guess that she believed it in her heart that she WAS part of this family, and that she WAS Italian. When people would ask me why I don't look like my sister, I'd say "Cuz I'm adopted!" I find the different views fascinating.

And regarding family being more than genetics..... couldn't agree more. As I said to my stepdaughter, when her dad and I divorced, "Family are the people who love you and care for you..... and we will always be family." My ex's sister and I were really close, and I still refer to her as my sister-in-law. And now my husband and his family are part of my every-growing "family". There are people who look at me sideways, wondering how I can keep in touch with anyone related to my ex, now that I have a new husband. I guess I consider my "family" to be those who raised me and were raised with me + those I raised + those I gained through marriage....... I love 'em all!! And they all have different surnames, which brings us back to the topic of the thread and my point that I - personally - have no special attachement to a name one way or another... it's pretty much everything else BESIDES the name that makes me who I am.

L