Name Changes
The Press reports:
Some Christchurch men are taking more than a wife when they say “I do”.
Traditionally, brides have accepted their husband’s name when they tie the knot. However, in Christchurch some men are taking their wife’s surname.
Dale Brooking recently became Dale Paterson when he married Lisa Paterson.
I am not a traditionalist when it comes to most aspects of relationships.
Absolutely delighted if my partner earns more than me. If kids ever eventuate, then my expectation would be we both go part-time to share caring duties.
Would be absolutely relaxed about whether or not a future wife keeps her own surname.
But would I ever give up my own surname? Nope. Unthinkable. Maybe if I was a Smith or a Brown I might think differently.
Hyphenation is a possibility, but Farrar is not a name that lends itself to that.
Maybe it is just amongst my circle of friends, but I would say 80% of the women I know have kept their “maiden” names once they are married. Once it was very rare, but now it is very common.
Most of them though go with the bloke’s name for the kids.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Hyphenation is a possibility, but Farrar is not a name that lends itself to that.
It would lend itself beautifully to hyphenation with Fawcett…
[DPF: Oh yes my nickname from school which started at around six years of age!]
May 13th, 2010 at 10:12 am
I suspect Dale Brooking is a wet liberal pinko, probably a Green or Labour party member, I have no issue with people keeping their own name, but taking the name of the sheila is going a bit far.
What’s the bet that Dale Brooking even helps make the bed in the morning!
I hope they do not breed.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:14 am
After that clip they showed of you as a yoof last night on back benches DPF, I’d have thought you’d be partial to a change of identity
(edit – that’s not meant to be insulting, but it sure was funny)
May 13th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Depends on how you feel about your name I guess. Friend of mine changed his name – his father had left when he was pretty young, he wasn’t very attached to it.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:20 am
My children have their mother’s last name, but Mulholland is their middle name. Legally speaking anyway. Now I am separated I call them Mulholland.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:22 am
What happens when a kid from parents with hyphenated names marries a kid from another hyphenated named family eg.
smith-jones marries Psycho Milt-big bruv, shit in 3 or 4 generations the poor buggers will have surnames that will fill a page in the phone book.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:26 am
i wouldnt marry a chick that kept her own name. deal breaker.
does dale have a vagina?
May 13th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Hi Blair, pretty sure I know you.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Or you could go completely stupid and end up with 4 last names such as
Heather Du Plessis-Allan Soper
May 13th, 2010 at 10:30 am
When are these emasculated whimps going to grow a pair?!
I have a problem with guys even taking on the hyphenated option, let alone losing their own and taking on the wife’s surname.
The transition from a paternalistic Judeo-Christian society to that of a maternalistic feminist one is ALMOST complete.
… and we think some kids are confused NOW about their sexuality and what it is exactly to be male/female.
That some people think this is progress is what is truly scary …
May 13th, 2010 at 10:36 am
dime 10:26 am,
Yeah, I agree.
If she wants to keep her own name, and not take mine, you have to ask just how committed she is to the marriage. And, in my case anyway, just how much she will submit to the authority of her husband – call me old fashioned.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:39 am
[DPF: Oh yes my nickname from school which started at around six years of age!]
Now that’s better than calling the lone West Indian – chalkie!
May 13th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Woman wants to keep her own name is one thing, but a guy taking his wifes name – its pretty obvious who wears the pants in this relationship. What a sap.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Happened twice in my family’s history. Marry money, and take the money’s name: simple principle. When the Portuguese in Angola, Mozambique and, to an extent, in South Africa had kids, the child took the mother’s surname, followed by the father’s surname. Women usually adopted their husband’s surnames, or at least his patrilineal surname, at the end of their name. A good example from history was Juana María de los Dolores de León Smith, [Lady Smith, the wife of General Sir Harry Smith, famously married after Badajoz fell to Wellington in 1812].
May 13th, 2010 at 10:41 am
We’re considering combining the two names into a new one (not hyphenated, just a new name).
May 13th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Heather Du Plessis-Allan Soper would be three surnames; Du Plessis is one name, not two. The most famous Du Plessis that I know of was Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu. Strikes me that a lot of Kiwiblog readers are unable to imagine any culture other than their own.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Good on you Dale, you and the missus will both sit down to piss no doubt.
Christchurch what is it?
Shagging donkeys
Not paying their hookers but drown and run them over instead.
IV drug capital of New Zealand.
And probably stupid enough to elect Jim Anderton as mayor
May 13th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Miaouw k’tsh
What that’s I hear?
May 13th, 2010 at 10:49 am
You people really care what names other people choose?!
May 13th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Kris K …
I’m calling you old fashioned.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:00 am
What took you so long, Grant? I picked up an apt and pithy saying from a South African friend in the UK: “Money breeds well”. From what you’re saying “Money keeps it’s name”.
You have to break them in, Kris. Like a wild Kaimanawa horse
May 13th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Beyond old fashioned. Women should submit to her husband’s authority. I dunno, I thought we’d done some work on equality in NZ.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Pauleastbay I think the perp ran her over then tossed her in the river, had he done it your way she might have survived.
ps heard he, the perp, was from the outer island.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:04 am
I had a bit of a barney with my sister a few years ago when she decided not to change her name…just for stating my opinion that a family should have the one family name, she got all new-age feminist on me
Now she’s got her eldest kid in school she’s come round to my way of thinking and just keeps her maiden name for professional purposes…I knew there was a sensible girl in there somewhere.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Word of the Day: pussy-whipped.
(yes, its a word)
May 13th, 2010 at 11:10 am
dime 10:26 am,
i wouldnt marry a chick that kept her own name.
but you will scew her… and she may have your bastard kids.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Oh please….
A name is just that, a name.
I know of at least one circumstance where the man took the wife’s last name, with the reason being she was an only child and the last member of the family to carry the name. While he on the other hand came from a large family, with a number of brothers.
In terms of what to do with people with hyphenated names marry, as I see it the logic is to create a new hyphenated name based on the males paternal last name, and females maternal name. I.e. Sally Smith and George Brown produced Susan Brown-Smith; while Bill Bunton and Lucy Brown produced Tom Bunton-Brown.. if they married then the surname would be either Smith-Bunton, or Bunton-Smith.
Personally, it is up to people to decide for themselves, no one has the right to enforce their views…
For the record, my wife happily chose my name, of her own free will, while I would never have chosen to take her last name, and she definitely does not yield to my authority, as she is my equal.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:22 am
@Ben. is it a noun or an adjective?
May 13th, 2010 at 11:22 am
So still single dime and Kris K? Long may that continue. Cavemen with ‘women are the property of the husband’ attitudes hopefully will not breed. Freedom – guys or girls call yourselves what you want.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:26 am
PaulL 11:01 am,
While some might regard it as old fashioned, I have never heard of feminists protesting over the old fashioned notion of ‘women and children first’ when the ship’s going down …
Seems to me like most feminsts want ALL the kudos when it’s plain sailing, but when the shit really hits the fan suddenly they go all girly girly and expect the men to get them out of the crap. And often it’s crap of their own making. How does that one work?
May 13th, 2010 at 11:29 am
ben 11:09 am,
Was that when Mr Pussy married Miss Whipped?
May 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
as she is my equal..
Arr another delusional male.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Dale, I’m sorry. I’m going to have to ask you to hand in your man-card.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Well the PM is John Clark
May 13th, 2010 at 11:42 am
No, more a male that isn’t so insecure that he feels the need to attempt to subjugate their partner to make up for his feelings of inadequacy…
I don’t know who I feel more sorry for, those that are so inadequate, or the pathetic woman that will happily put up with their rubbish.
Actually no, I feel sorry for neither… Both types deserve each other.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am
The Icelanders have an interesting naming system. I think this is how it works:
Boys’ “surnames” are their father’s first names plus -son, and girls take their mothers’ names plus -dottir.
A David Farrar son would be Davidson in his second name. If DPF’s wife or partner’s name was Jane a daughter would be so-and-so Janedottir.
Most European name systems must have been something similar long ago, because of all the Johnsons and Williamsons around, and all the Mc and Mac and O names which I think mean “son of”.
A minor glitch many older NZ folk strike comes from the fact that it used to be fairly common, especially in old Scots-settled areas, for boys to be called by their second or middle names. Often this middle name was from their mother’s pre-marriage surname or the pre-marriage name of one of their grandmothers. Computerised sign-up forms seldom allow for middle names to be the main forename, so these folk must use their hitherto unused first names for some official purposes.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:50 am
That’s interesting Jacck, re the scots middle name trend. My grandmother has the issue regularly… expecially at hospital…
May 13th, 2010 at 11:50 am
…just how much she will submit to the authority of her husband – call me old fashioned.
Wow, a catch like you must have to beat the ladies off with a stick…
May 13th, 2010 at 11:50 am
While we’re on surnames, do any of you know of a desperate, masochistic lady with a penchant for trying to save the damned, who might take on Philu as a husband or life partner and rip him away from his keyboard? The one stipulation is that she must have the surname Stein, or be willing to change her name to this, and demand Philu adopt her name.
“Philu Stein” would be a great moniker for him.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Am I missing something here? The notion of women keeping “their own names” seems inherently meaningless, because women don’t have “their own names” to keep. You can make a stand against taking your husband’s name, but the name you’re keeping is just the name that your mother took from her husband. It’s the same thing, just pushing it back a generation or two further and arbitrarily deciding that the name your preferred female ancestor took from her husband is somehow a name for the female side of the family.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:54 am
@put it away, personally I gave up on pointing that one out. I now just giggle at it…
The reason my wife was so keen to take my name was largely due to the fact she wanted rid of her fathers name.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Ryan Sproull at 10.41:
I hope your better half isn’t called Ogg, Ryan? Your new surname might be Sprogg. Then if you have a daughter and she marries a Little … well Little Sprogg wouldn’t be a kind name for a grandchild would it?
May 13th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Put it away 11:52 am,
Good point, PIA.
It reminds me of the acceptance of ‘chairperson’ in preference to the old ‘chairman’.
What really makes me laugh is that ‘person’ actually means ‘son of’, which of course is in the masculine.
So feminists tried to get rid of the masculine ‘chariman’ only to replace it with the EQUALLY masculine ‘chairperson’ – or is that actually ‘son-of-chair’, Heh.
Sorry girls (and all the pussy-whippees), but it’s lose-lose no matter how you dress it up.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I know at least two couplings in which the man’s name is so unfortunate, he would be wise to consider adopting his bride’s name.
And:
[big bruv]:I suspect Dale Brooking is a wet liberal pinko, probably a Green or Labour party member[/quote]
^^^ That is why I do not value big bruv opinions and more than I value the shit in the treads of my boots.
GTFO, ridiculous troll.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Ha.. Woman come Ist ask Kate next Blog..
May 13th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Sorry, really sorry to bring this up, and my apologies to the official apologisers.
But should we add this post-marriage names issue to Apologies Day?
We could officially apologise to all the hundreds of millions of women who have changed their surnames on marrying? And to their billions of descendants throughout the centuries, of course.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Jack5 12:01 pm,
Or that Ryan marries a Miss Rocket – although ‘Ryan Sprocket’ does have a certain ring to it …
May 13th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Maybe I could talk her around to that beforehand. Hmmm. The possibilities.
She’s turned down my offer of being Mrs Thundercats.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Right, so a women’s name reflects only one part of her genetic heritage. Kind of like a man’s name? What’s in a name anyway? It bemuses me that people put so much store in this – I do know some couples who just moved to a new made-up surname for both of them – either combining names, or just picking one they liked. That works for them.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Does anyone here have a family member who has married two people from the same family, e.g. first husband dies and remarries widowed brother of first husband? This seems to have been quite common a generation or two ago. Over the weekend I was talking with the 85 year-old second husband of my grandfather’s sister. Although I’ve known them all my life I never knew he was her second husband and the brother of her first. I know of two other instances of this. Interesting.
He also has excellent memories of the ’31 earthquake.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
The “women and children first” hardly ever occurrs – I can’t find the paper that reports on this but apart from two notable occurrances (Titanic and Birkenhead, the latter from which the term eventually came about) it really was “every man for himself”. And in the case of the Birkenhead the women and children were a special case – they were the officer’s wives and children and the general ranks were *ordered* to stand aside. And with the Titanic, the men were ordered to stand aside but it was under the belief that the men would be rescued because it was underestimated how far away the rescue ships were.
The paper looked at who survived and who died from a number of sinkings and overwhelmingly children and women died disproportionately more often.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
mpledger — regarding the Titanic I remember researching this some years ago. I think you’ve made a mistake there — if my memory serves me correctly women and children were disproportionately much more likely to survive than the men. Indeed James Cameron when making the Titanic noted that the actual behaviour and the heroism shown was downplayed in the movie, simply because modern moviegoers would not believe it.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Regarding the actual question of men changing their name to the wife’s name — I have seen this on a number of occasions. In every case it was because the young man involved was radically alienated from his father. So he chose his wife’s name, because he didn’t like his father really. In each case I don’t think it was a positive move and must have really offended the father involved.
The wider question of the relationship between husband and wife and the issue of submission, which Kris K has bought up is an interesting one. It’s a little bit like corporal punishment in schools, Liberal sex education, liberalisation of laws regarding alcohol etc — one wonders when the Liberal will wake up to reality. The simple reality is that their ideas don’t work when faced with the real world and the reality of human nature.
I appreciate DPF who hosts this blog brilliantly. However is he the best person to comment authoritatively on how marriage should be structured and how the two people should relate to each other, given that he has never been married?
For my part I would like to respectfully suggest that the current Liberal mindset regarding marriage and relationships is a shambles and is destroying family life and is destroying the underlying structure of New Zealand Society. Men and women are not relating to each other well and there is in many marriages a manifest battle of wills between husbands who do not take responsibility and women who will not submit to their husband’s leadership.
I see this over and over again. Men who are cowed and uncertain and women who are brassy and stroppy. We need to urgently return to tried-and-true thinking regarding this issue.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Another awesome catch. Having trouble finding women who’ll “submit to your leadership,” Scott? Maybe it’s not the Liberals’ fault…
May 13th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Fucking poof
May 13th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Once again we see proof that the extremes at either side of the political and social divide have more in common with each other, than the moderates on their own side, i.e. a distinct desire to dictate how others live their lives.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
@ Kris K: “What really makes me laugh is that ‘person’ actually means ’son of’, which of course is in the masculine.”
I’m pretty sure that “person” comes down from Old French personne, meaning human being, which in turn comes from the Latin “persona”, or a part in a play, or role. It doesn’t come from “son of” at all.
As for the Mc/Mac and O- prefixes, the first means “son of” and the second means “from the line of” or “descended from”.
On the topic of changing names, though, whose business is it apart from the couple involved? I would have thought there were better things to get exercised about.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Scott 1:29 pm,
Indeed, Scott.
Some might go so far as to suggest there is an agenda behind this continual drive to socially engineer our society away from our Judeo-Christian roots, and towards … Lord knows what.
All I know is that NO ONE will be happy with the end result.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
We can’t all be as handsome and debonair as you psycho milt!?
Actually there are a lot of women who like men who will take responsibility and leadership. Leadership does not necessarily mean tyranny — it means the ability and willingness to lead well, to sacrifice for the good of the relationship, and most particularly to exercise servant leadership. Servant leadership means that the husband considers what is good for the whole family, rather than what is his preference?
The traditional male breadwinner and leader of the household is actually when done well, a pretty good model of how marriages can be structured to last and provide a secure environment for everybody. Many of us have grandfathers and uncles who were patriarchs, in that they were in charge of the family, but they exercised their rule in a kind and benevolent way.
Those marriages lasted, unlike many many marriages today. Indeed I saw recently some celebrities having a six-month anniversary of their marriage. They wanted to mark the anniversary presumably because they were afraid they wouldn’t get to the one-year mark!
May 13th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
“We need to urgently return to tried-and-true thinking regarding this issue.”
Fucking oath!
Who let them out of the kitchen in the first place?
May 13th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Fuck this is scary reading.
May 13th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
You didn’t really expect any different, did you?
May 13th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
You said it Jeff83
Seriously, “…. servant leadership…” ??? I guess we should also be keeping some boys to pick the cotton fields…
May 13th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:15 pm,
Welcome to KiwiBlog, where most of the commenters (and readers?) are even MORE conservative than the blog host – the last true bastion of where men (and the odd woman) are not afraid to ‘say it like it is’. Long may it continue …
May 13th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Yeah, everyone out of the room unless you’ve been happily married for at least 20 years, never divorced, never played away, both you and your husband/wife have parents on their original marriages, none of your children have had children out of wedlock, or divorced or separated, and you’ve all inherited your names in the correct manner.
Anyone left?
May 13th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
As no one wanted to become “Mrs Snack”, I HAD to let her keep her own name ! Seriously, there seem to be too many people missing the implied /sarc or /irony (or /trolling) tags, or at least I hope that’s true.
I’m one of those who likes and respects a name, but surely it’s an individuals right to chose ? My wife kept her name for several reasons, and we agreed that if we had children that boys would get my surname, girls hers (I always liked that Icelandic idea, only we eschewed the son/dottir bit). As it turns out, only boys FWIW. It strikes me to be more unusual not to chose one or other of your original names, perhaps a bit over inventive, but if that’s what grabs ya, go ahead.
Kris K, I give you “where men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from alpha centauri were REAL small furry creatures from alpha centauri…” ! and the source is ?
May 13th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Scott: “Many of us have grandfathers and uncles who were patriarchs, in that they were in charge of the family, but they exercised their rule in a kind and benevolent way.”
Well not necessarily. My folks have been married to each other only for 45 years, but I doubt my father would ever make any claim to being the family boss. He was in charge of providing money and muscle (ie “discipline”), while my mother was without a doubt the top dog in the marriage. It was the same in every house in my street and, I imagine, the whole town I grew up in. We were run by women and none the worse for it.
May 13th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
[Scott]: ” the current Liberal mindset regarding marriage and relationships is a shambles and is destroying family life and is destroying the underlying structure of New Zealand Society. Men and women are not relating to each other well and there is in many marriages a manifest battle of wills between husbands who do not take responsibility and women who will not submit to their husband’s leadership.
I see this over and over again. Men who are cowed and uncertain and women who are brassy and stroppy. We need to urgently return to tried-and-true thinking regarding this issue.” [/quote]
HOLY FUCK! And you’re serious aren’t you?
It was giving them the vote that started it all.
May 13th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Sort of sheds some light on how some people must have felt about Helen Clark, regardless of her policies.
May 13th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
And I thought the first three letters of your name and my colleague’s worked so well.
May 13th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Misogynist of the world, unite!
It’s pure comedy.
It’s also true when they say the dinosaurs live among humans
May 13th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
“and women who are brassy and stroppy.”
that is how kiwi women roll….
i like how insisting a wife takes her husbands name is misogynistic… dont get me wrong, i am.. but not because of that!
May 13th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Malcolm — no, you don’t have to have the perfect marriage to be able to comment on this issue. However some knowledge of the subject matter from a practical point of view of having been actually married is definitely an advantage.
Bearhunter — I know what you are saying and certainly the women of the households of 50 years ago certainly had a big say about what went on. No one is denying that. However I would suggest that dad, often in a very quiet way, had a major leadership role, if not the major leadership role in the way things actually would transpire.
The rest of you — how come you always come out when I am commenting? Does your master tell you? Is there a disturbance in the force? You get a feeling in your gut? Perhaps the devil whispers in your ear?
But obviously I am wrong. Universally wrong. The universal truth is that you guys know what is right. I am a misogynist. You are enlightened and Liberal and appropriately secular. No doubt you can comment because you have been happily married for decades and your children are enjoying the blissful Liberal utopia that you have bequeathed to them.
The other thing that always amuses me is the new guys. They have just never heard anything outside of godless secular liberalism. So they are offended, shocked. Like a 10th century Bishop faced with an atheist.
In fact what I am saying was common sense for much of our history. Still make sense today, from my unenlightened, neoconservative, fundamentalist Christian, misogynist viewpoint.
Anyway must do some work. Scott — out.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
A women wanting to keep her own name would be a deal-breaker for marriage to you, eh Dime? I suspect that for most women, repeated use of prostitutes (and commenting about it on blogs) might be considered a a deal-breaking trait in a potential husband.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
plum – only the uptight ones
May 13th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
I have to agree with Scott. He does have an “unenlightened, neoconservative, fundamentalist Christian, misogynist viewpoint”
May 13th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Scott
Lighten up FFS. I’m the boss in my house and I’m allowed to do anything I want whenever I want.
Got that …………………..just like you appear to be in your neoconservative, fundamenetalist house
now I’ll get my hand off it and better peel some spuds before the very short but potentially very violent chick walks through the door
May 13th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Plum
Dime does not use hookers repeatedly, he tells me that he never shags the same one twice.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
My darling one and only daugther got married a month ago. No hesitation about taking her husbands name. She is what I call a well balanced feminist.
Believes in equal opportunities That its better for mum to stay at home with the babies and youngsters if financially possible.
That a Mum and Dad family have a better chanceof raising good kids to be gooid adults.
Im proud of her and her well sorted approach to life.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I agree, Scott. It wasn’t really directed at you – I was just reflecting on the “you’re not uniquely qualified to comment in this issue” sentiment which we see all the time. It’s so common you hardly notice and think how weak a point it it. I like to invert it and ask “who is uniquely qualified to speak on this issue?”.
FWIW, I’m happily married (7 years) with two kids and I think it’s ok if women doesn’t want to take the name of their husband. I also think it’s ok, albeit a little odd, for the husband to take their wife’s name. I’m sure they have a good reason – even if that reason is that they’re a little weird. Each to their own.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
bruv – dam right!
May 13th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
@Lastmanstanding, surely if your daughter belives in equal opportunities, she would think that it is better for *either mum or dad* to stay at home with the babies if finacially possible, rather than it being *mum* by default.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Plum
Some things chicks are just better at, like breast feeding.
Mums are better at staying home and looking after the kids, it is really as simple as that.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Ed Snack 2:40 pm,
“42″ ?
Reminds me of when I was doing my engineering degree – whenever a lecturer would ask a question, and when there was an appropriate pause, someone would always answer “42″ – always got a laugh. I’m sure as most of us are of a similar vintage that particular answer can only imply ONE question.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Plum
LMS ‘s daughter obviously married a man not like our mate Dale who started this thread.
May 13th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
OK, just to add my two cents. I kept my maiden name (yes, my father’s name). I am actually rather attached to my surname and it is part of my identity. I think of myself as a “my surname” and not so much a “husband’s surname”. I also really hate writing the particular letters that appear in my husband’s surname so it was also a practical decision (yes, I am saying this mostly in jest).
We’ve followed a Scottish tradition from my grandmother’s family ie: our children have my surname as their middle name and my husband’s surname as their surname.
I was most concerned (about having a different surname to my children) when it came to what my children’s friends would call me but… in this day and age most children call me (and other parents) by their first names. Everyone at school knows me as “son’s name… Mum” so my previous concerns have disappeared.
May 13th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
What of those who to choose to have a civil union? I wonder if the woman would usually take the man’s name in such a case? And what of same sex couples? I wonder if they choose one name to adopt or whether they come up with a new name entirely?
May 13th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Need to be careful when taking a partner’s surname and vice versa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuRwis3_iVk
Sherlock
May 14th, 2010 at 8:02 am
I changed my surname when I got married yet again last year. The reasoning was quite simple. I have never liked my surname – I struggle to say the bloody thing and it is nearly always misspelled. My wife preferred to keep her name (actually the surname of her first husband) for professional reasons. I don’t have that necessity. And we wanted all four of us (20yo -hers by her earlier marriage- and our toddler, plus us) to have the same surname for simplicity when we travel to our favourite spots where things can get a wee bit tricky at times.
However, the paperwork is daunting – I have yet to change my name on my drivers licence, for example – but the passport is AOK and that’s the main thing.
May 14th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Luc
I am presuming that you didn’t take the name of your wife’s first husband though surely.
Good luck with the drivers licence
May 14th, 2010 at 8:42 am
“However I would suggest that dad, often in a very quiet way, had a major leadership role, if not the major leadership role in the way things actually would transpire.”
Err, I was THERE and he didn’t. Normal practice for the bloke then was to come home on payday, hand over the brown envelope and receive some spending money from the wage within. When work was scarce (as it often was) he’d go and work away and bring back the pay packet unopened.
May 14th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Not clear what all the fuss is ? Surely an individual can call themselves anything they like if it is not done with the intention to defraud.
Far more interesting is what lies behind an individuals choice of web pseudonym. That would be very revealing.
May 14th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Wondering how difficult it is to write triple bee’s ?
May 14th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I’d have demanded she change her name to mine if it ever became an issue during my courtship or ditched her. Fortunately she was/is a very old fashioned girl. Flaccid fellows indeed!!
May 15th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
If Mrs Smokes insisted on hyphenation or me changing my name I would have traded her in for the Portugese model named Maria. This guy is clearly a a Homo or a sufferer of acute softillicockis. So many beautiful women in the world and this numpty picks a parking warden
May 15th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
mikeysmokes how do you get from “adopting partners surname” to “homosexual” ?
May 15th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
dime (2066) Says:
May 13th, 2010 at 10:26 am
i wouldnt marry a chick that kept her own name. deal breaker.
______________________________
Instinct tells me that any ‘chick’ that wanted to marry dime wouldn’t be too fussy about her name.
May 15th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
And for a blog dominated by free thinking right wingers – I’d have thought you’d all want people do whatever they want with their names. Except for Kris who will assume that all their kids will somehow come out gay.