Gents, would you take your girlfriend's surname after you got married?

I Heart Internet

Men - would you take on your girlfriend's surname when you got married? Either as a straight-forward swap for your own, a double barrelled one, or a merger of the two surnames to form a new one.

Apparently (see article below), people are doing it.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10847140/Should-I-take-my-girlfriends-surname-when-we-marry.html#source=refresh

I wouldn't. My wife hasn;t taken my name either btw.

I think, as long as any children have their fathers surname then sanity will prevail.

pablomakaveli

I wouldn't but my girlfriend doesn't like her surname so will probably take mine if we did get married. I wouldn't be bothered if she wanted to keep her surname though.

But i'd draw the line at double-barrelled surname for our kids. Not a fecking chance of that.

Celly Smunt

I have a severe dislike for people with double barrelled surnames.

c_man

No. Reading that article made me cringe tbh.

Irishcrx

I would but I actually have a set of balls...I know a few who've done it , they have high pitched voices..

OneArt

My kids will have to pass a long, complicated test of bravery and courage on their sixteenth namedays before they're allowed ANY surname.

Mr_Red

It would all depend if I liked it or not

if it was Hitler or Rammsbottom then eh .......No

B_Rabbit

I wouldn't.

GLaDOS

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I have a severe dislike for people with double barrelled surnames.

You dislike people for the name their parents gave them? Why?

keith16

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I have a severe dislike for people with double barrelled surnames.

pfft....says "Mr. Celly-Smunt"

preston johnny

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I have a severe dislike for people with double barrelled surnames.

Oh I dunno about that

http://www.locksleynet.com/2010/05/27/when-not-to-double-barrel-your-name/

Uriel.

No I wouldn't. I like my surname and although it probably doesn't matter in reality, i do see it is an essential part of my identity.

Getting married in the next while and we haven't really discussed if she will take my surname. It's not important to me and if she wished to preserve her/her family's identity, then more power to her

We have discussed the situation if we have kids and they'll take mine.

Lenin Skynard

Absolutely not.

fleet_admiral

wouldnt bother me to be honest, the wife took mine no bother

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dawn Porter became Dawn O'Porter after she married Chris O'Dowd.

I believe this is called 'meshing'.

Humanbean

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think, as long as any children have their fathers surname then sanity will prevail.

I think, if I have either not got married or have not taken my husband's surname on getting married, then if I have carried the child for nine months and ruined my body for it, I should at least get to give it my surname.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

fleet_admiral wrote: »

wouldnt bother me to be honest, the wife took mine no bother

...

eviltwin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think, as long as any children have their fathers surname then sanity will prevail.

Explain

castletownman

Sure that's going to happen when I marry my sister boss

Celly Smunt

ScienceNerd wrote: »

You dislike people for the name their parents gave them? Why?

Idiot parents make idiot children.

I Heart Internet

eviltwin wrote: »

Explain

It would be a genealogical mess if we abandoned the norm of children having their father's surname.

jaja321

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think, as long as any children have their fathers surname then sanity will prevail.

Why?

fleet_admiral

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

...

matron

Pat Mustard

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Dawn Porter became Dawn O'Porter after she married Chris O'Dowd.

I believe this is called 'meshing'.

She is taking a joke a bit too far there. Not very funny either.

eviltwin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It would be a genealogical mess if we abandoned the norm of children having their father's surname.

You'll have to explain that one too, I'm not really following your line of thinking

I Heart Internet

The Mustard wrote: »

She is taking a joke a bit too far there. Not very funny either.

I'm not sure she is joking...not totally anyway.

B0jangles

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It would be a genealogical mess if we abandoned the norm of children having their father's surname.

Iceland seems to be coping just fine - they use the father's (occasionally mother's) first name and append "son" or "daughter" to it to make the children's surnames

So Olaf Jonnson's son might be Tor Olafsson, and then his kid would be Sigrid Torsdaughter.

meoklmrk91

I'm quite protective of my surname, I don't have any brothers to pass it on and there isn't a massive amount of cousins on my fathers side regardless. I doubt I will ever be getting married but if I did then I will be keeping my name, I would love to pass my surname onto my children, it isn't massively common either, particularly not where I am from, however I know compremises have to be made somewhere and most men want their kids to have their surname. I have to say I think it is unfair that its just s given that the women are the one to have give up their name or at the least the chance to pass on part of their identity.

Pat Mustard

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm not sure she is joking...not totally anyway.

I suppose I was giving her the benefit of the doubt. Her modified name is quite ridiculous.

Celly Smunt

B0jangles wrote: »

Iceland seems to be coping just fine - they use the father's (occasionally mother's) first name and append "son" or "daughter" to it to make the children's surnames

So Olaf Jonnson's son might be Tor Olafsson, and then his kid would be Sigrid Torsdaughter.

Yes.But this is Ireland, where double barrelled surnames are not the norm.

I Heart Internet

eviltwin wrote: »

You'll have to explain that one too, I'm not really following your line of thinking

The tradition of a child taking their father's name simplifies genealogy. My father was Mr. Internet, his father was Mr. Internet, his father....etc.

Abandon that certainty and, in 150 years time, genealogy records will be a complete mess.

harry Bailey esq

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Men - would you take on your girlfriend's surname when you got married? Either as a straight-forward swap for your own, a double barrelled one, or a merger of the two surnames to form a new one.

Apparently (see article below), people are doing it.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10847140/Should-I-take-my-girlfriends-surname-when-we-marry.html#source=refresh

I wouldn't. My wife hasn;t taken my name either btw.

I think, as long as any children have their fathers surname then sanity will prevail.

i wouldn me bollix

Alf. A. Male

I think it's still illegal for a man to change his name by marriage in Ireland and you'd have to execute a seperate deed poll.

0ph0rce0

As long as its not banannahammock then i couldn't give a shíte

I Heart Internet

B0jangles wrote: »

Iceland seems to be coping just fine - they use the father's (occasionally mother's) first name and append "son" or "daughter" to it to make the children's surnames

So Olaf Jonnson's son might be Tor Olafsson, and then his kid would be Sigrid Torsdaughter.

Yes, and that's a fine system. But it is a clearly defined, predictable system. We have such a system too - a child has it's father's surname. Take away that certianty and things become messy.

B0jangles

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Yes.But this is Ireland, where double barrelled surnames are not the norm.

So? Norms can and do change all the time. Why not make it the new norm that sons take their father's surname and daughter's take their mothers?

Sometimes a child has their mother's surname.

Don't really get the snobbery against double barrels tbh

boobar

I never expected my wife to take my name and she hasn't.

So I wouldn't take hers and again it wouldn't be expected.

eviltwin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes, and that's a fine system. But it is a clearly defined, predictable system. We have such a system too - a child has it's father's surname. Take away that certianty and things become messy.

Messy for who and for what? My daughter has my name not her dad's. What possible problem could that cause for her in the future.

oldyouth

I'm not for changing names by either party, but my wife did take my name. However, I have a serious cringe factor when people go double-barreled. Keep your single name if you wish but don't start making shoite up

Tokyo

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The tradition of a child taking their father's name simplifies genealogy. My father was Mr. Internet, his father was Mr. Internet, his father....etc.

Abandon that certainty and, in 150 years time, genealogy records will be a complete mess.

I somehow doubt it. 10 seconds on facebook and I know more about extended family members than I ever cared to.....

fleet_admiral

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

As long as its not banannahammock then i couldn't give a shíte

I know a publican who's surname is ramsbottom, the poor unfortunate gobshite

I Heart Internet

eviltwin wrote: »

Messy for who and for what? My daughter has my name not her dad's. What possible problem could that cause for her in the future.

The problem is not for her. It is for genealogists 200 years from now who have no clue who she's related to...

folan

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The problem is not for her. It is for genealogists 200 years from now who have no clue who she's related to...

yeah, people in the future are clueless.

wendell borton

Changed my surname to Stuart-Houston, because it got a bad rep due a member being a dick.;)

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

The Mustard wrote: »

She is taking a joke a bit too far there. Not very funny either.

Might have started off as a joke but even her books on Amazon have her name as O'Porter.

eviltwin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The problem is not for her. It is for genealogists 200 years from now who have no clue who she's related to...

All they have to do is go on her facebook. 1000 years from now my relations will be able to see what i had for breakfast. Besides her birth cert says exactly who she is related too, all you have to do is follow the trail back. Its pretty common for kids now to have their mothers name, I'm sure the future people of the world will be able to figure it out.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

No woman would ever be dumb enough to marry me so that's not gonna be an issue I'll have to deal with. Having kids outside of marriage though I would want my kid to have my surname. I find the thought of my son not having my name quite sad tbh.

newport2

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Men - would you take on your girlfriend's surname when you got married?

No, I expect my wife would object. Sure she doesn't even know her that well.

murphyebass

I'll probably be seen as sexist by saying this but I genuinely think its a really nice tradition for the woman to take the mans surname in marriage.

edit .. so to answer the op, no I definately would not take her name as I believe it should be her taking mine.

jimgoose

oldyouth wrote: »

I'm not for changing names by either party, but my wife did take my name. However, I have a serious cringe factor when people go double-barreled. Keep your single name if you wish but don't start making shoite up

I like double-barrel names, and I think they're a fine idea to ensure that the wife's (usually) name doesn't fade through lack of use. I'd reckon that's why the toff types in Blighty do it - chances are that both families of a young married couple would be considered quite "important" in a heraldic context.

--
Yours,

General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay-Melchett. Bah!!