MRS "husbands name"

eviltwin

ResearchWill wrote: »

The old view was that as long as Mr. John Smith's mother was still alive any of her daughter in laws are referred to as Mrs. John Smith, in fact if the mammy in laws mother in law is still alive she should be referred to as mrs. Husbands name smith.

My own view if a person accepts the archaic tradition of taking her husbands name then all that goes with that tradition survives.

so you would use Mrs John Smith to address a woman who had taken her husbands name?

I just find that really confusing. If you know her name is Mary why not address it to John and Mary Smith. Or Mr and Mrs Smith if you don't know her first name.

It seems a lot of people out there like deliberately antagonising people

ResearchWill

eviltwin wrote: »

so you would use Mrs John Smith to address a woman who had taken her husbands name?

I just find that really confusing. If you know her name is Mary why not address it to John and Mary Smith. Or Mr and Mrs Smith if you don't know her first name.

It seems a lot of people out there like deliberately antagonising people

If a person has shown their intention to follow tradition, I don't think it is antagonising to follow that tradition to the letter. I'm male I still call most if not all my female married friends by their maiden surnames and their own first names. If I was having a very formal do then maybe I would follow tradition, but otherwise I don't. My point was if a person is following a tradition then they really can't get upset if another person follows that tradition to the letter.

eviltwin

ResearchWill wrote: »

If a person has shown their intention to follow tradition, I don't think it is antagonising to follow that tradition to the letter. I'm male I still call most if not all my female married friends by their maiden surnames and their own first names. If I was having a very formal do then maybe I would follow tradition, but otherwise I don't. My point was if a person is following a tradition then they really can't get upset if another person follows that tradition to the letter.

Why you just don't refer to people the way they wish to be referred is mind boggling.

ResearchWill

eviltwin wrote: »

Why you just don't refer to people the way they wish to be referred is mind boggling.

There we go with assumptions. Did it not dawn on you that my friends prefer to be called what I call them. Where did I say I did something against what they prefer.

So why don't you read a post and maybe ask a question to clarify before jumping to conclusions, mind boggling indeed.

eviltwin

ResearchWill wrote: »

There we go with assumptions. Did it not dawn on you that my friends prefer to be called what I call them. Where did I say I did something against what they prefer.

So why don't you read a post and maybe ask a question to clarify before jumping to conclusions, mind boggling indeed.

But where does taking your husbands name mean you are happy to be addressed as Mrs John Smith? Fair enough if you have been told to address cards etc as such but your initial post made it look like you did that regardless of their wishes. Maybe you should have said that after my reply.

ResearchWill

eviltwin wrote: »

But where does taking your husbands name mean you are happy to be addressed as Mrs John Smith? Fair enough if you have been told to address cards etc as such but your initial post made it look like you did that regardless of their wishes. Maybe you should have said that after my reply.

My post clearly said if a person wishes to take on an archaic (enough in that word to show what I think of it) tradition, then they take on the full tradition not just bits of it as they choose. How am I to know a person wishes to only be addressed as mrs Smith and not mrs Bob Smith, in fact by changing her name the bride indicates she accepts the tradition.

To be clear I would only refer to a person in a manner I believe they would like. But how am I supposed to know a second cousin wishes mrs smith not mrs bob smith, what if I know Mr. smiths mammy is very old fashioned and would get upset if I address her daughter in law as mrs. Smith. Who do I insult then.

In answer to the question, But where does taking your husbands name mean you are happy to be addressed as Mrs John Smith?

The tradition is not just to take your husbands family name, it is in the event if your mother in law being alive being correctly called mrs bob smith. The person is still Mary and in most circumstances is called mrs Mary smith, but in joint invites is called mr & mrs. Bob smith. I personally think its all rubbish, so why get upset about it, as long as the Christmas card has money or vouchers you can call me anything you want.

rainbowtrout

ResearchWill wrote: »

My post clearly said if a person wishes to take on an archaic (enough in that word to show what I think of it) tradition, then they take on the full tradition not just bits of it as they choose. How am I to know a person wishes to only be addressed as mrs Smith and not mrs Bob Smith, in fact by changing her name the bride indicates she accepts the tradition.

No, actually it's you that's imposing your belief of how the tradition works on them. If a woman gets married and chooses to take her husband's surname, she is in no way obliged to be referred to as Mrs John Smith from that point on if she does not want to be, and if you insist on calling her Mrs. John Smith just because she took on Smith as a surname, but wants to be called Mrs. Mary Smith then that's just pure ignorance on your part.

A person changing their name is in no way an indication that they accept any other traditions that may have been associated with it in the past or in the present.


If I get married I can't honestly see myself changing my surname, but if I did I would expect to be referred to as Ms Rainbowtrout Smith and not Mrs. John Smith, and if you persisted in referring to me as the latter even though you knew my preference then I would just have you down as pig ignorant.

ResearchWill

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No, actually it's you that's imposing your belief of how the tradition works on them. If a woman gets married and chooses to take her husband's surname, she is in no way obliged to be referred to as Mrs John Smith from that point on if she does not want to be, and if you insist on calling her Mrs. John Smith just because she took on Smith as a surname, but wants to be called Mrs. Mary Smith then that's just pure ignorance on your part.

A person changing their name is in no way an indication that they accept any other traditions that may have been associated with it in the past or in the present.


If I get married I can't honestly see myself changing my surname, but if I did I would expect to be referred to as Ms Rainbowtrout Smith and not Mrs. John Smith, and if you persisted in referring to me as the latter even though you knew my preference then I would just have you down as pig ignorant.

Did you miss this part of my post "To be clear I would only refer to a person in a manner I believe they would like."

And this " I personally think its all rubbish, so why get upset about it, as long as the Christmas card has money or vouchers you can call me anything you want."

I will take it that when you used "you" you did not mean me, and so was not calling me a pig but instead are referring to others in general.

username123

lazygal wrote: »

I also am really baffled as to the number of women my age (early 30s) who change their name. I couldn't imagine changing my name at this stage, and the hassle to change bank cards and ID. A lot trot out the 'kids having the same name' line or 'he'd be annoyed if I didn't take it'. Bizarre tradition. I'd have been worried if my husband even thought to suggest I change a name that has served me well all my life.

Im late 30s now, I go by both my maiden name and my married name, depending on circumstance.

I cant say Ive found it a hassle to change my name anywhere. I dont intend on having kids and my husband couldnt care less what I call myself. I wanted to take his name.

The only place I do not intend to change it is academically because Id rather keep all my academic documents in the same name.

Its not like you lose your old name, you can still say to people 'oh yes, I am also username123 hername'.

I like it, a free extra name! Its like having an alternate super hero identity - well ok, its not quite that much fun, but I do like choosing to be one or the other as I please.

ppink

ResearchWill wrote: »

My post clearly said if a person wishes to take on an archaic (enough in that word to show what I think of it) tradition, then they take on the full tradition not just bits of it as they choose. How am I to know a person wishes to only be addressed as mrs Smith and not mrs Bob Smith, in fact by changing her name the bride indicates she accepts the tradition.

To be clear I would only refer to a person in a manner I believe they would like. But how am I supposed to know a second cousin wishes mrs smith not mrs bob smith, what if I know Mr. smiths mammy is very old fashioned and would get upset if I address her daughter in law as mrs. Smith. Who do I insult then.

In answer to the question, But where does taking your husbands name mean you are happy to be addressed as Mrs John Smith?

The tradition is not just to take your husbands family name, it is in the event if your mother in law being alive being correctly called mrs bob smith. The person is still Mary and in most circumstances is called mrs Mary smith, but in joint invites is called mr & mrs. Bob smith. I personally think its all rubbish, so why get upset about it, as long as the Christmas card has money or vouchers you can call me anything you want.

Am I the only eejit who never even heard of this tradition??:eek:

Esterhase

ppink wrote: »

Am I the only eejit who never even heard of this tradition??:eek:

Nope, I also had no idea about the mother in law business! But I suppose it must be getting fairly outdated at this point, so I will continue to ignore it.

lazygal

username123 wrote: »

Im late 30s now, I go by both my maiden name and my married name, depending on circumstance.

I cant say Ive found it a hassle to change my name anywhere. I dont intend on having kids and my husband couldnt care less what I call myself. I wanted to take his name.

The only place I do not intend to change it is academically because Id rather keep all my academic documents in the same name.

Its not like you lose your old name, you can still say to people 'oh yes, I am also username123 hername'.

I like it, a free extra name! Its like having an alternate super hero identity - well ok, its not quite that much fun, but I do like choosing to be one or the other as I please.

I kind of understand why women do it if its a free choice.

However, a LOT of the women I know who did change said it was because their husbands would be annoyed if they didn't and would be mortified to be called Mr. Wifesurname. Or that they'd be worried about hassle with their children not having the same name. So when it moves from being something one does freely to being done because other people expect it, that's where I have an issue. I got a lot of 'you're one of the 'HusbandsSurname' clan now when we got married and get cards with Mr and Mrs Hisname Hissurname from a lot of his relatives. If a friend said she was changing her name because of that sort of reason, I'd be wondering if the name change was being made for the right reasons ie free will.

username123

lazygal wrote: »

So when it moves from being something one does freely to being done because other people expect it, that's where I have an issue.

Excellent point. Actually, I never realised that people changed it because it was expected of them.

I do remember after I got married that my MIL announced me to a few people as "The Young Mrs Hisname" but I just took that as a joke that she was laughing at herself for being Old Mrs Hisname..... (maybe she was trying to gauge my reaction!).

Im not sure if my parents in law even know what name I go by? Itd be rare that they would see anything addressed to me. I dont think it was ever a 'thing'. Id be annoyed with them if they did make any kind of issue though because its no ones business but my own as far as Im concerned.

Esterhase

Yep, expectations are still definitely a reason for name changing. It's still seen as the done thing, even though lots of women choose to keep their own names.

I hate the idea of getting married and having his family claim me as 'one of the Hisnames now'. I know that people saying this are usually trying to be welcoming, accepting a new family member and such, but when the time comes I might find myself reminding them that I already have a clan of my own and don't need to be a member of theirs. If I really want to make a point about it I'll get my family to start telling everyone that himself is 'one of the Mynames now'.

coathanger

AGH,This drives me mad,I got married 10 years ago & said in my wedding speech that I wouldnt be taking my husbands name, & I didn't & dont go by it at all & make no secret of the fact .That person "Mr & Mrs F Murphy"does not exist & I wont open mail if it is addressed to the above,cos there is only one of them & its my mother in law, & not me !!The only person who addresses mail correctly is my Mum,considering she is of the older generation,I think its great,just wish everyone else would do the same.

Rant over !:D

The Big Red Button

coathanger wrote: »

AGH,This drives me mad,I got married 10 years ago & said in my wedding speech that I wouldnt be taking my husbands name, & I didn't & dont go by it at all & make no secret of the fact .That person "Mr & Mrs F Murphy"does not exist & I wont open mail if it is addressed to the above,cos there is only one of them & its my mother in law, & not me !!The only person who addresses mail correctly is my Mum,considering she is of the older generation,I think its great,just wish everyone else would do the same.

Rant over !:D

See I doubt too many of your guests will remember the details of a speech from a wedding ten years ago! I'm sure no one means you any offence calling you by your husband's name. It's an easy mistake to make.

Not opening mail seems a bit of an extreme overreaction to me!

eviltwin

Two friends of mine got married this year and both took their husbands name. There are no kids. Both took their husbands names because they say it makes them feel more of a family, it makes them feel more married. Having been married for 4 years now and still using my own name I can't say I feel any less married or less of a unit becasue of it. I wonder if its an esteem issue for the women in question, I know both of them were desperate to get married from quite early on in the relationship.

tiny_penguin

eviltwin wrote: »

Two friends of mine got married this year and both took their husbands name. There are no kids. Both took their husbands names because they say it makes them feel more of a family, it makes them feel more married. Having been married for 4 years now and still using my own name I can't say I feel any less married or less of a unit becasue of it. I wonder if its an esteem issue for the women in question, I know both of them were desperate to get married from quite early on in the relationship.

I think that's a very judgemental view to take. I'm not married, in no rush to get married but i know that when I do I will take my husbands name. I too feel that for me personally i would like to have the same name as my husband. For me it's part of becoming a unit. I know everyone doesn't feel that way but it doesnt change my feelings on it. If I have children in the future I would like us all to have the same name, the be the smith family say. It may seem trivial to some but it would be important to me. To be honest I wouldn't have a problem if he wanted to take my name but I have no particular connection to my surname. It's just a name. The only inconvenience I see is learning a new signature but I hate my signature as it stands. I wouldn't get upset to get letters addressed to my maiden name. For me it's unimportant and I choose to believe that people don't go out of their way to cause offence.

To be honest I find a lot of women who choose to keep their own name very judgemental to those who do the don't. I have had this conversation with a lot of my girlfriends and its always the same. Just because its not something you would choose doesn't make people's reasons duly or down to self esteem problems.

If you don't want to be address a certain way and someone does it, then tell them straight that you don't like it. If they do it repeatedly after that then get annoyed.

eviltwin

tiny_penguin wrote: »

I think that's a very judgemental view to take. I'm not married, in no rush to get married but i know that when I do I will take my husbands name. I too feel that for me personally i would like to have the same name as my husband. For me it's part of becoming a unit. I know everyone doesn't feel that way but it doesnt change my feelings on it. If I have children in the future I would like us all to have the same name, the be the smith family say. It may seem trivial to some but it would be important to me. To be honest I wouldn't have a problem if he wanted to take my name but I have no particular connection to my surname. It's just a name. The only inconvenience I see is learning a new signature but I hate my signature as it stands. I wouldn't get upset to get letters addressed to my maiden name. For me it's unimportant and I choose to believe that people don't go out of their way to cause offence.

To be honest I find a lot of women who choose to keep their own name very judgemental to those who do the don't. I have had this conversation with a lot of my girlfriends and its always the same. Just because its not something you would choose doesn't make people's reasons duly or down to self esteem problems.

If you don't want to be address a certain way and someone does it, then tell them straight that you don't like it. If they do it repeatedly after that then get annoyed.

I'm not judging the women in question. I don't think it matters what name a woman takes so long as she is happy with her decision. I'm telling you what the two women in question said their reasons were. Having the same name as your husband doesn't make you more of a family. The fact these women are so insistant that it does makes me wonder if they think it makes their marriages somehow more secure.

tiny_penguin

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not judging the women in question. I don't think it matters what name a woman takes so long as she is happy with her decision. I'm telling you what the two women in question said their reasons were. Having the same name as your husband doesn't make you more of a family. The fact these women are so insistant that it does makes me wonder if they think it makes their marriages somehow more secure.

I don't mean to argue, but when you say it's down to self esteem issues to think having one names is an important part of being a family is judging. That's their choice and their belief. If you don't believe that then it's fine. And speculating what they may be thinking about people that don't do the same is just speculation and not really anyone's concern.

eviltwin

tiny_penguin wrote: »

I don't mean to argue, but when you say it's down to self esteem issues to think having one names is an important part of being a family is judging. That's their choice and their belief. If you don't believe that then it's fine. And speculating what they may be thinking about people that don't do the same is just speculation and not really anyone's concern.

It might read that way but honestly I'm not judging either of them. I'm not speculating. I asked them both their reasons and that's what they said to me - "having the same name as your husband makes you more of a family". If that makes them feel better then good for them but its just an interesting reason, I thought.

ResearchWill

eviltwin wrote: »

It might read that way but honestly I'm not judging either of them. I'm not speculating. I asked them both their reasons and that's what they said to me - "having the same name as your husband makes you more of a family". If that makes them feel better then good for them but its just an interesting reason, I thought.

While you may not be judging them the post gave that impression, "I wonder if its an esteem issue for the women in question, I know both of them were desperate to get married from quite early on in the relationship."

CuriousG

If I was married, it would not bother me. You are married and essentially one, a minor detail like a first name is just formality, I think.

eviltwin

ResearchWill wrote: »

While you may not be judging them the post gave that impression, "I wonder if its an esteem issue for the women in question, I know both of them were desperate to get married from quite early on in the relationship."

Desperation to get married does seem to me to be a sign of insecurity.

ResearchWill

eviltwin wrote: »

Desperation to get married does seem to me to be a sign of insecurity.

So you are judging them. To be honest I don't care, but when another poster said you judged them you said no .

Tiny said in reply to your post "I think that's a very judgemental view to take."

You replied "I'm not judging the women in question."

Tiny then replied "I don't mean to argue, but when you say it's down to self esteem issues to think having one names is an important part of being a family is judging."

To which you replied "It might read that way but honestly I'm not judging either of them."

I then accepted you are not judging them, but set out your original post and said that could be taken as a judgmental statment.

I said "While you may not be judging them the post gave that impression, "I wonder if its an esteem issue for the women in question, I know both of them were desperate to get married from quite early on in the relationship."

To which you replied "Desperation to get married does seem to me to be a sign of insecurity."

eviltwin

ResearchWill wrote: »

So you are judging them. To be honest I don't care, but when another poster said you judged them you said no .

Tiny said in reply to your post "I think that's a very judgemental view to take."

You replied "I'm not judging the women in question."

Tiny then replied "I don't mean to argue, but when you say it's down to self esteem issues to think having one names is an important part of being a family is judging."

To which you replied "It might read that way but honestly I'm not judging either of them."

I then accepted you are not judging them, but set out your original post and said that could be taken as a judgmental statment.

I said "While you may not be judging them the post gave that impression, "I wonder if its an esteem issue for the women in question, I know both of them were desperate to get married from quite early on in the relationship."

To which you replied "Desperation to get married does seem to me to be a sign of insecurity."

I don't think I'm judging anyone. I don't look down on them, I don't think I am better than them. I know the women in question, I know their history. I do think they rushed into marriage very quickly because they were insecure. I read the thread here on what's great about being single and I know these women would have had nothing positive to say about it. I worry about them but I am not judging them. If you want to take it that way fine but I have never once felt superior to either of them and I never will.

Lia_lia

I don't ever plan on getting married, ever. But if I did (for I dunno...passport reasons!) I wouldn't change my name. I like my surname!

My parents never got married, they separated when I was 6. My Father has always lived in a different country. Buuut my brother and I have my Fathers surname. Yet letters from school regarding my brother and I for my Mother used to always be addressed to "Mrs (my Fathers surename)" Eventhough we constantly corrected them. Really annoyed her!

username123

eviltwin wrote: »

Desperation to get married does seem to me to be a sign of insecurity.

Or it could just be a sign that they wanted to be married, for a myriad of other reasons.

Seems like a strong conclusion to jump to based on little evidence. Claiming that they took their husbands name due to self esteem issues seems that you want to assign a pejorative reason to a woman taking her husbands name. I dont understand this, taking your husbands name is not an intrinsically bad or good thing - it doesnt have a moral value - its just a tradition that some people follow and some dont, for a variety of reasons.

It seems like you are trying to allude that it is somehow a negative thing to do by telling a story of two women and referring to their self esteem, insecurity and desperation?

It does come across as a judgemental way to speak of friends, I would not like it if I thought a friend was talking about me this way online and judging the choices I have made because they do not like the decision I have made.

eviltwin

username123 wrote: »

Or it could just be a sign that they wanted to be married, for a myriad of other reasons.

Seems like a strong conclusion to jump to based on little evidence. Claiming that they took their husbands name due to self esteem issues seems that you want to assign a pejorative reason to a woman taking her husbands name. I dont understand this, taking your husbands name is not an intrinsically bad or good thing - it doesnt have a moral value - its just a tradition that some people follow and some dont, for a variety of reasons.

It seems like you are trying to allude that it is somehow a negative thing to do by telling a story of two women and referring to their self esteem, insecurity and desperation?

It does come across as a judgemental way to speak of friends, I would not like it if I thought a friend was talking about me this way online and judging the choices I have made because they do not like the decision I have made.

We'll have to agree to disagree so.

username123

eviltwin wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree so.

On what bit?

Judging your friends or taking your husbands name being a negative thing for someone to do?