Would you be annoyed if your wife didn't change her name?

eqwjewoiujqorj

Don't Irish speakers use "Uí"

Dovakhin

eqwjewoiujqorj wrote: »

Don't Irish speakers use "Uí"

"Uí" is actually the genitive form of "Ó", so for example, a book written by Séan Ó'Connor is "leabhar Shéain Uí Chonnoir"= Séan Ó'Connor's book. So the whole name goes into the genitive.

Modern Irish speakers occasionally use the "Uí" as a way of sort of taking the English naming convention after marriage into Irish. So for example if Séan Ó'Connor marries Aoife Ni Cheallaigh, she could call herself Aoife Uí Chonnoir after marriage, this translating to "Aoife of the descendant of Connor", more or less.

This does happen sometimes (never saw any study on the frequency of it or anything like that) but it is an innovation, ie it is a response to, and attempt to accommodate, the English naming convention. It is not the traditional Irish naming convention.

In fact, some sources (I'm thinking of my 1961 copy of Teach Yourself Irish for example) explicitly say that you're not to do this - I'll quote you the bit:

"A married woman does not take the surname of her husband. If Mary Kelly marries Peter O'Sullivan she remains Máire Ní Cheallaigh....not Máire Ní Shuilleabháin."

So if an Irish woman today does not take her husband's name, she is following the traditional Irish convention (probably without knowing!).

HellFireClub

Is it not almost a highly loaded insult for a woman to say to her future husband, "Just to let you know, I'll not be taking your surname"?

Dovakhin

HellFireClub wrote: »

Is it not almost a highly loaded insult for a woman to say to her future husband, "Just to let you know, I'll not be taking your surname"?

No.

HellFireClub

Dovakhin wrote: »

No.

No? Why not? It would be a serious insult to me...

yawha

Would it be a serious insult if a man said to his future wife he wouldn't be taking her name?

lazygal

HellFireClub wrote: »

Dovakhin wrote: »

No.

No? Why not? It would be a serious insult to me...

It would be a serious insult to me if my husband expected me to change my name, the implication being that my name is less important than his.

Zulu

lazygal wrote: »

... the implication being that my name is less important than his.

Eh no. The implication being that your married :rolleyes:

Dovakhin

HellFireClub wrote: »

No? Why not? It would be a serious insult to me...

That's your problem then.

Taking the husband's name on marriage is a very patriarchal (and as I've been trying to point out, English) tradition. Not wishing to follow it is perfectly normal, and not some sort of insult to one's husband.

In fact, I'd have been rather worried if my husband had made any kind of fuss about it, but of course, being a dedicated feminist as he his, he thought the notion of me changing my name after marriage was daft.

Hermione*

Zulu wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

... the implication being that my name is less important than his.

Eh no. The implication being that your married :rolleyes:

But is he not also married??? And his name isn't changing. Therefore, the implication is that his name is more important :rolleyes:

I wouldn't change my name. I might take my husband's name, but I'd definitely keep mine as well.

username123

HellFireClub wrote: »

Is it not almost a highly loaded insult for a woman to say to her future husband, "Just to let you know, I'll not be taking your surname"?

No. How is it insulting?

riveratom

lazygal wrote: »

It would be a serious insult to me if my husband expected me to change my name, the implication being that my name is less important than his.

But 10 years or so ago you wouldn't be insulted, most likely.

It's about tradition, I seriously doubt you're husband would be implying that your name is less important than his! That seems silly to me that anyone could think that!

LeeHoffmann

.

XxMCRxBabyxX

riveratom wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

It would be a serious insult to me if my husband expected me to change my name, the implication being that my name is less important than his.

But 10 years or so ago you wouldn't be insulted, most likely.

It's about tradition, I seriously doubt you're husband would be implying that your name is less important than his! That seems silly to me that anyone could think that!

Plenty of women kept their own names 10/20/30 years ago so for some they would be insulted.

This is not some new-fangled idea. Plenty of women have kept their own names for decades now

lazygal

riveratom wrote: »

But 10 years or so ago you wouldn't be insulted, most likely.

It's about tradition, I seriously doubt you're husband would be implying that your name is less important than his! That seems silly to me that anyone could think that!

My mum never changed her name, and she got married in the mid 1970s. My mother in law married in the late 1960s and also never changed her name. Its not some new fangled fad.


And if a woman's name is changeable, but a man's is not, doesn't that imply, explicitly or implicitly, that his name is more important than hers?

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What the Romans did was not really relevant to Ireland though considering we never adopted their culture here.

If you removed every word from that sentence that does not have some relationship to Roman culture or language, I suspect you'd not have much left...

Seriously though, I don't think many European males would really be all that bothered if their wives did not change their names any more. I think this is far more of an issue with countries such as the USA, which still hold onto this tradition - I've known very career orientated American women who changed their surnames without a thought once married, even though it might cause confusion professionally.

Of those Europeans who do change their names, that I know, it tends to be for practical or aesthetic reasons - either they didn't like their original names. Maybe their names are foreign and want to better integrate. And some are politicians and have taken their husband's name because of alphabetical advantage.

I think it's become a bit of a semi-observed tradition; a wife may occasionally use her husband's name when specifically identifying as married, or in relation to things such as schools (so it will match the childrens' surnames), but outside of that, and officially, I suspect few change their surnames and even fewer are bothered either way.

The Corinthian

buried wrote: »

But that is your assumption based on the ancient Roman Empire that the practice still does indicate 'ownership'.

Historically speaking, that's not entirely true. In Roman society, women did not have their own status per say; that is they had the status of their husband because when they married, they ceased to be members (officially, although naturally not in practice) of their parents' family and became full members of their husbands' family. As such, their social class also changed; if a woman of the equestrian or even plebeian class married a patrician, she became a member of the patrician class herself. For men, rapid change in class like this could only be achieved by adoption.

As for 'ownership', this was far more complex. Officially, yes - sort of anyway as it was actually 'guardianship' rather than ownership. In practice, letters recovered from wives to their husbands clearly demonstrate that they had a huge amount of power in the relationship; often literally instructing their husbands on what to do in their careers.

This paradox of appearance versus reality in Roman family life is a motif that has survived in Italian (and other Romance cultures) family life today - vizi privati, pubbliche virtù.

Additionally the ultimate sanction of the pater familias - the right to literally kill or sell into slavery any member of the family that he headed - was specifically not extended to his wife, who could only be killed in the case of adultery.

Naturally, these laws changed over time, with some reforms giving women greater rights (if a man divorced his wife without good reason she got half of his property and would effectively be free - although she's still officially had to be appointed a 'guardian') or fewer rights (Augustus was particularly misogynistic and puritanical, in this regard, despite his wife Livia being a de facto co-ruler in many respects).

Anyhow, most traditions regarding marriage and surnames stem probably more from the middle ages and also are more influenced from Abrahamic traditions, via Christianity, than pagan Rome.

And if you're still awake after reading that, I salute you.

riveratom

lazygal wrote: »

My mum never changed her name, and she got married in the mid 1970s. My mother in law married in the late 1960s and also never changed her name. Its not some new fangled fad.


And if a woman's name is changeable, but a man's is not, doesn't that imply, explicitly or implicitly, that his name is more important than hers?

No it doesn't, that was my point

In this day and age, it can't be seen as anything more than tradition, albeit one that has faded in recent times. As we've already seen, most if not all men wouldn't care if their wife changed their name or not. So there can't be any 'more important than mine' element to it at all really.

I would also say that there are at least a few women who are more than happy to take their husband's name, if they simply like it better than their own and/or feel it goes better with their first name.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Inspired by a thread in relationship issues. I haven't changed my name and never intend to. My husband never has an issue with it and didn't care, neither of our mums changed their names.

Because of the kind of relationship we are in myself and the girls can not get married. Instead we worked out a lot of legal ways to get most of the same things married people have. Changing names did come up.

To be honest we could not think of a single good reason to bother - so we did not. It did not bother me or them in the slightest. We did decide our children will take my name though.

boobar

My wife never changed her name....

If someone called her Mrs "MyName" she wouldn't even realise they were trying to address her.

It's a choice thing in my view.

We have a daughter and she has my surname, but I wouldn't have objected to her having her mother's name either....

pwurple

I wonder does the age you get married make a difference?

I had a career built up, with contacts and the rest by the time I got married. There would have been a professional impact to changing my name. If I had gotten married at 19 or so, that road wouldn't have started yet.

buried

The Corinthian wrote: »

Historically speaking, that's not entirely true. In Roman society, women did not have their own status per say; that is they had the status of their husband because when they married, they ceased to be members (officially, although naturally not in practice) of their parents' family and became full members of their husbands' family. As such, their social class also changed; if a woman of the equestrian or even plebeian class married a patrician, she became a member of the patrician class herself. For men, rapid change in class like this could only be achieved by adoption.

As for 'ownership', this was far more complex. Officially, yes - sort of anyway as it was actually 'guardianship' rather than ownership. In practice, letters recovered from wives to their husbands clearly demonstrate that they had a huge amount of power in the relationship; often literally instructing their husbands on what to do in their careers.

This paradox of appearance versus reality in Roman family life is a motif that has survived in Italian (and other Romance cultures) family life today - vizi privati, pubbliche virtù.

Additionally the ultimate sanction of the pater familias - the right to literally kill or sell into slavery any member of the family that he headed - was specifically not extended to his wife, who could only be killed in the case of adultery.

Naturally, these laws changed over time, with some reforms giving women greater rights (if a man divorced his wife without good reason she got half of his property and would effectively be free - although she's still officially had to be appointed a 'guardian') or fewer rights (Augustus was particularly misogynistic and puritanical, in this regard, despite his wife Livia being a de facto co-ruler in many respects).

Anyhow, most traditions regarding marriage and surnames stem probably more from the middle ages and also are more influenced from Abrahamic traditions, via Christianity, than pagan Rome.

And if you're still awake after reading that, I salute you.

No bother, I enjoyed reading that, thank you. I enjoy history, and yes, your right, the little bit of Roman history I know of (my father is a massive Roman history fan, he's always going on about it after a few at Christmas!) there was a lot of powerful women who shaped the known world at the time, Clodia, Octavia, many others too no doubt. Wasnt Julius Ceaser's route to power helped by the fact his family were descendant's of a Goddess? I must read more myself about the subject.

BadGirl

Am 10 years married next month, took me about 5 years (maybe more) to change my name on documents like drivers licence, passport, banks etc, Still think mortgage acc is in maiden name, never bothered himself a bit, I dunno why it would bother someone tbh?

Wompa1

Wouldn't care

starlit

All depends on the surname, I like mine but people get bamboozled by it to be honest.

I probably change mine but all depends on the surname to be honest. I wouldn't be bothered either way if I changed mine or not or he changed his!? Or combined the two but say that might be impossible to be honest unless he had a short surname!

I am sure he may not care and I probably wouldn't might not necessary get married ha. I wouldn't put pressure on him to change his surname or for me to change mine.

SpatialPlanning

Both myself and my girlfriend have surnames which are also words you could could use for "penis" in our respective countries.

Damned either way :cool:

The Corinthian

buried wrote: »

Wasnt Julius Ceaser's route to power helped by the fact his family were descendant's of a Goddess?

Venus... allegedly... :rolleyes:

matrim

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest. In fact my GF has already said if we ever do get married she won't change her name.

We did have a bit of a disagreement on kids names an I would like them to have mine but the agreement we went with was a non hyphenated double name wiht mine last e.g. Sean Smith Jones

That way either could be used when the kid gets old enough to choose for themselves.

The Corinthian

matrim wrote: »

We did have a bit of a disagreement on kids names an I would like them to have mine but the agreement we went with was a non hyphenated double name wiht mine last e.g. Sean Smith Jones

That way either could be used when the kid gets old enough to choose for themselves.

I've often thought the Spanish approach to this is quite good in this regard, although it can get rather verbose.

hatrickpatrick

To be honest I'd be very uncomfortable with a woman changing her last name for me, I'm a firm believer in the idea that being in a relationship shouldn't mean the loss of your own individuality, and I wouldn't want anybody to give up something as deeply personal as their actual name for me. Just strikes me that if you ask someone to change their name, you're asking them to change literally a part of themselves.