Name Changing when married

iguana wrote: »

You understand that I can see your original post right?

Yup I was a mod here before. But I would have expected a mod not to bring up and dicuss publicly a post that was deleted by the poster in the space of what? a minute after posting it as they decided to leave it be and not post it? Thats about the same as you posting up a PM sent too you.

iguana wrote: »

And I'd have completely ignored it if it wasn't for the aggressive way you titled your edit.

Hardly call it aggresive but hey thats me.

Not aggressive anyway, possibly dismissive?

...anyway isn't all this seriously off topic?

ShowAndGo wrote: »

One of my pet hates is the way people state their opinion as if it is an undisputable fact. It may come as news to you Iguana but you don't get to decide what does and does not affect people’s relationships.

You'd think that if it was one of your pet hates you'd be better at identifying it then.:rolleyes:

Whether or not a woman changes her name has no real impact on a man. He doesn't have to change his passport, his driving license, his bank account, his details at work, he doesn't need to fill in certain sections of Garda clearance forms. He doesn't have people who know him by one name or the other. He doesn't receive cheques that he can't cash because it's a different name to the name on his bank account. He doesn't have to contact all of his utility providers to change his name on them. He doesn't have to decide if he should leave at least on bill in his old name in case he ends up in a dispute about his identity. He doesn't need to have a copy of his marriage certificate always to hand just in case it's needed.

Anyone who changes their name has to do all of that. That's not an opinion in anyway whatsoever. It is an indisputable fact, an actual reality of all the little bureaucratic tasks that must always be completed when anyone changes their name. And which years and decades into their lives still cause inconveniences.

As for whether a woman wishes to involve her husband in the decision I already said that lots of women will choose to do that. But that is their choice, not their husband's right.

My fiancee and myself have discussed this issue. My point of view is that it does not affect me so she can do whatever she wants. She thought about the issue for a while and in the end she decided that she will take my surname and replace her middle name with the surname that she has now. In fact what was a more important discussion IMO was if we did not have the same surname then what surname would our kids have. Although she has decided to take my surname, before she had we had discussed this issue as it would have affected us both and our family together, who knows she might change her mind on the name change between now and the big day

With double barrelled names..what name do the kids take?

My fiancée will take a double barrel name but i am not sure what our kids should be called?

What if we have a strong minded daughter (very likely if she takes after her mother!!), will she want a nonsense quadruple name when she marries??

I would prefer they take my family name of course..
I'm curious , has anyone else here thought about it?

hazeler wrote: »

To say that this double-barreled madness is a fad, is a little naïve and offensive to those who have and use two surnames.

It's not naive & it wasn't meant to be offensive.

The double-barreled concept is relatively new in this country. Now I'm happy for you to prove to me that it's been in existence for 10 generations in your family, but frankly, we all know it was relatively rare in this country until the last few generations.

I'll be creating a new generation of my family, with my name. It means alot to me and my OH respects that; like me she respects tradition.

We have long gone past the days where people did things only because it was the "done thing".

Now that is a naive comment. The amount of church weddings, christenings, & communions that are undertaken each year because it's the done thing I'd wager far out weight the converse.

Double-barrelling is not such a new fad.
I have a double-barrelled surname, my mother double-barrelled on marriage and I followed suit. On my birth cert my mothers surname name is stated as the middle name and my fathers surname was my surname. However, I was always referred to using both, double barrelled.
I choose as a teenager to use only my father's name, and to keep my mothers name as a middle name.
I shall not be taking my future husbands name. This is my name, its part of my identity, it just wouldnt feel right to me.
If we have children, we may consider to have the same as I got as a child - his surname as surname, my surname as a middle name, thereby giving us and the new person we make the option of double-barrelling or just using his surname.
T'aint rocket science like.

catho_monster wrote: »

I have a double-barrelled surname
<snip>
If we have children, we may consider to have the same as I got as a child - his surname as surname, my surname as a middle name, thereby giving us and the new person we make the option of double-barrelling or just using his surname.
T'aint rocket science like.

So you are considering call your child as an example Mary Bloggs-Smith Murphy, seeing as your surname is a double barrel eg. Bloggs-Smith? Thus give your children a tripple barrel? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean. If I am please just say.

I've already made my decision but just thought I'd add another dimension to this thread.
My OH legally took his step-father's name when he was young and that's the name that I'll be taking. So not only am I not carrying on my bloodline, or whatever it's meant to be, but I'm not even carrying on his.
Has anyone else done the same as me?

Zulu wrote: »

If you were following tradition, you'd take his surname. IF you were following tradition.

My OH will take my name. I won't entertain the current double barrelled madness fad. It wasn't a big issue for her, but she wants to have the same name of our children.

TBH I don't think I'd agree to a church wedding otherwise. I don't see the point in "cherry picking" traditions.

Actually if people were to follow tradition the wealthier of the partners getting married would have their name carried on and the less well off person would drop their surname. This was the way things used to happen and money not gender ruled the day. If a poor man married a woman from a wealthy family he took her name.

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Actually if people were to follow tradition the wealthier of the partners getting married would have their name carried on and the less well off person would drop their surname. This was the way things used to happen and money not gender ruled the day. If a poor man married a woman from a wealthy family he took her name.

Plus that throughout history women are generally known by their own name. It was Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard who had their heads chopped off, not Anne and Katherine Tudor. We never hear of Lady Jane Dudley the 9 day queen, it's the Lady Jane Grey. Also her mother is referred to as Frances Brandon far more than Frances Grey. And her mother was called Mary Tudor, Queen of France rather than Mary Brandon. It's Jane Seymour, not Jane Tudor. It's Katherine Parr, not Katherine Borough, Katherine Nevill, Katherine Tudor or Katherine Seymour. Anne Askew was certainly never known as Anne Kyme. Katherine Willoughby is remembered as such rather than Brandon or Bertie. And Lettice Knollys is not remembered as Lettice Dudley or Blount.

For centuries women have been styling themselves as best befitted their lives. It hasn't been a case of women automatically being known as their husband's surname. They were often known as both or either during their lifetimes, the same as today.

It's actually quite a bit funny when people declare it's 'tradition' without knowing why, how or even if that is actually the case. Being known only by your husband's surname after marriage may have been the norm in certain sections of society and certain time periods but it most certainly wasn't the how it always was and how it always shall be.

Things change, something being tradition doesn't make it good. Lets remember that for the vast majority of us here we would be lowly, peasants without hope of improving our lives in any significant way. We would be banned from wearing certain materials and colours. Banned from having sex before marriage or on certain days even within a marriage. Living in arranged marriages, parenting children in the double figures and poorly educated with limited literacy if any at all if we were to accept living our lives based on tradition.

Some here have said that you can't or shouldn't pick and choose which traditions to follow. Well that's a load of bull, you can and you will. I'd bet my life that everyone who has stated such on this thread does in fact pick and choose what traditions to follow. Everybody always has and everybody always will, you could even call it tradition.:)

Zulu wrote: »

In fairness, a lot of names mentioned there I'm not familiar with. I am, however, familiar with some of them, and they appear to be our neighbors royalty.

For clarity's sake, are you suggesting that the assumption that, it is the tradition in Irish society, when a man & woman marry, the woman takes the mans surname (ie: becomes Mrs. Mansurname) is incorrect or inaccurate?

...because that certainly would be news to me!

They are all famous historical figures and like it or not at the time they were not our 'neighbours royalty' but our royalty and many of our traditions stem from theirs.

And yes the assumption is incorrect. It was and is certainly popular but it was not automatically assumed. In fact by law your only name is your birth name unless you change it by deed poll, but any name you use on a daily basis is considered your name and can be put on your passport, electoral register or other legal documents after two years usage. Marriage only speeds up how quickly you can use the other name on legal documents, instantly. And that speed is conferred to both man and woman to use the other's name or a combination of both. And that has always been the case in this country.