What changing name means to you.

I'm changing my name but sure, each to their own. I wouldn't expect people to, and I know it will shock people that I'm doing it because I would describe myself as a feminist. My father will not be giving me away and my fiance knew better than to ask my fathers permission to marry me. It;s just not me!:D

I once got a big lecture from someone about not doing it, when i asked what her husbands name was....it turned out they both shared a surname (but weren't related) so she never had to choose.

I have just read this string ( I am getting married soon) and since Tupins began the thread, I guess I should reply here.

I believe that everyone has the right to choose their own destiny, and I genuinely wish Tupins only the best in your choice. I also believe that that Garda should have bit her tongue. It was absolutely none of her business.

However, since you have invited comment, I must say that personally, I find it very difficult to understand how, today, any woman can follow this sexist convention. I will not change my name when I marry, and critically, my children will have both my husband's and my name, but I feel the need to reply to some of the attacks I have had made on me since I went public with this decision. I have done so in "point format" below and would be delighted to hear feedback.

1. The convention that a woman change her name to her husband's name is a sexist convention, originally devised as a means of showing that a man owned his wife.

Ok, before you answer, no, I do not think for one second that women who marry today believe that they are owned by their husbands, or that husbands feel that way either. However, I believe that this is a convention that is irreparably tainted by sexist ideals.

While a man no longer owns a woman, it is simply unfair, hurtful, unequal and sexist that it is only the woman's name that comes under discussion when a couple announce their engagement. Not one person has questioned my fiance about the future of his name after marriage.

If there is the mere suggestion that a man should change his name, it is greeted with shouts of incredulity, as if the sky would fall in because someone dare think outside the box.

2. But, you say, "it's tradition" is there no value in that?!

Unfortunately, tradition can be used to justify just about anything. Consider the following phrases "Traditionally, women were unequal to men", or "Traditionally, white people kept black slaves" or "Traditionally, husbands did not allow their wives to work outside of the home".

In the foregoing examples, does the use of the word "tradition" actually legitimise any of those practices? So, how can we say that a woman changing her name to a man's is justified by "tradition". As the examples show, just because something is a tradition doesn't mean that it is good.

In my view, the only reason the convention exists is because “traditionally, a man’s name was more important than a woman’s”. If we get rid of the word “traditionally”, the stark reality of the convention is exposed.


3. But, you say, would you not like to have the same name as your children?

Of course I would, and I will. The tradition that a man's name be given to children, to the exclusion of his wife's name is just as objectionable as the tradition that a woman take her husband's name on marriage.

Double-barrelled names are one of the fairest way to ensure that both parents are represented, though I know a couple who merged their names (Walton / Ross) upon marriage to become Rosston, and another couple who gave one surname to one child and the other surname to another child.

Of course, many would say that it is about time that men's surnames took a hit and it is hard to argue with that, though it may be in pursuit of vengeance rather than parity!

4. But, you say, don't double-barrelled names sound pretentious?

Do they? Says who? "Traditionally" double-barrelled names were associated with the gentry. Even if this hijack ever occurred (and I don't believe it did), why should society not reclaim the double-barrelled convention?

People have taken much forcible action in the past in pursuit of liberty and equality (think French revolution); if the gentry ever stole our unspoilt perception of double-barrelled names, isn't it about time that it was peacefully taken back?

Further, double-barrelled names are the norm in Spain and Portugal, perceived as a true representation of the union between two people and, guess what, they are not all gentry.


5Yeah, yeah, you say, but what do my children do when they get married?

There are a million different ways of addressing this. This is how I propose to do it: My children (if we are lucky enough to have any) will keep his/her name in marriage, as my fiance and I will keep ours. He/She will give one of his/her surnames to his or her child , so our grandchild would be “one of our names” – “partner’s name / one of partner’s name”.

Of course we plan to have more than one child so, in all likelihood my fiance and my names will appear in one or other of our grandchildren's names.

However, if we only ever had one child, it would be entirely up to our child how to proceed. Perhaps he/she would name one of their children with one of our names, another with the other. Perhaps, our child would marry a lady like Tupins and our names would be preserved. Perhaps our child would choose to drop one of our names. Perhaps our child would create a hybrid name etc.

In any event, our child's name and the future of it would be something that would be discussed and debated between him/her and his/her partner, giving rise to more and more ingenious name-quirks as the years go by.

Of course, ultimately, my fiance and I both run the risk of our names "dying out" but so does everybody. A man who has his wife change her name and fathers only daughters will, by the application of his own logic, see his own name die out. A woman who changes her name at marriage has already sacrificed her name anyway, so would not be bothered by this.

Ironically, not that it bothers either of us, but my fiance and I are better protected against "die-out" of our names than any “one-name” man is.

6. But, you say, our names sound silly and too long together...

Do they really? Are you not just pre-disposed to scoff at double-barrelled names? In any event there are plenty of names that some may say sound unusual all on their own - "Ramsbottom", "Winterbottom", "Piddle", "Nut", but those names still belong to their owners. Very few men with names like this would change his unusual name on marriage.

The problem is that the instinctive reaction is "O'Callaghan-Hickey" or "O'Brien-Kavanagh" sounds silly and long. In reality, we are all just not used to hearing double-barrelled names.

In any event, the human race has proved itself quite able to cope with forenames like "Anne-Marie, Mary-Jane, John-Paul, "Isobel-Jane" for many years. I'm sure society could muster the effort to say an extra name in the name of equality.

7.But, you say, won't a man feel "de-manned" if his wife/children don't have his name, and his name alone.

You could write a thesis on this, but suffice to say that any man who is threatened by the mere presence of his wife's name alongside his own (not even at the expense of his name), has issues. This is simply not a reasonable excuse. A man is either man enough to break the mould or he is not.

7. But, you say, is changing your name not just a nice thing to do for your husband?

I'm buying my fiance a nintendo Wii tomorrow as a surprise. That's a nice thing to do for my fiance.

While the foregoing example is trite, ultimately, there are many nice things that one can do for one's husband / wife that do not have their roots in sexism and do not present to the world as a manifestation of sexist ideals.

Further, if it is a nice thing for a woman to change her name to her husband's, then it is an equally nice thing for a husband to change his name to his wife's name. If we believe it is such a "nice thing" why aren't we expecting the gesture to be made our way? Don't we think we deserve it?


Those are a few (!) of my thoughts on the issue. You can appreciate that this is something that I feel strongly about and I believe that it will take a number of brave decisions from, primarily, the women for true equality to be attained.

For those of you who want to change your name to your husband's, I would be very interested to hear what your views are on, for example, the Muslim veil?

Many Irish women believe it to be a symbol of repression and believe that the women who wear it don't even appreciate how they are being repressed. My Muslim friend wears one out of a mark of respect, a "nice thing" to do for her family...

There are a lot of reasons why people should or shouldn't change their surname. TBH, I don't have a strong view either way. I'll be changing my surname after we get married because (A) I've been X for a good while now and would like a change, (B) His surname is quite interesting and (C) I'm actually kind of excited about being assimilated in to his family, he has assimilated quite well in to mine.

OH isn't that bothered about it either, in fact asked why I would want to be lumbered with his surname but he also said he's secretly happy because it makes us a proper unit.

On kids having double-barrelled surnames, kids given double-barrells routinely only use their mothers surname (not by their own choice, they are too young) so if fathers out there want their name continued, make sure it is.