Women who keep their married name YEARS after the divorce.

System

I think what you name the children can be a bigger can of worms e.g. my DD wants any children she has to have her name, her boyfriend (prospective husband?) wants them to have his name. No arguments about what name she chooses but big issues about kids.

I agree. When my brothers girlfriend had their two children she refused flatly to give the children my brothers surname.... After all, she said, "we arent married!"

I am not saying it was right, i am not saying it was wrong as its none of my business but Mother wasnt very pleased.

duchy

Judi wrote: »

I agree. When my brothers girlfriend had their two children she refused flatly to give the children my brothers surname.... After all, she said, "we arent married!"

I am not saying it was right, i am not saying it was wrong as its none of my business but Mother wasnt very pleased.

Was that more to do with your brother not wanting to marry her though ?

I was known by my non legal surname for the first six years of my life as my parents didn't marry until then although very much wanted to be. My Mum simply crossed out my legal surname (her name) on my medical card -and wrote my Dad's name instead- and it was accepted by all wouldnt be possible nowadays ) As soo as they married my birth records were legally amended as I was then legitimate and entitled to my Dad's name. Times have certainly changed

I suppose I could change my name to my birth name if I wanted to although Ive never actually used it in fifty odd years - I don't think it would change me if I did or make me feel any more or less oppressed though !

System

Was that more to do with your brother not wanting to marry her though ?

Good grief no. He'd gone with whatever she wanted. It took her 15 years to decide if she wanted to stay with him.... as rumour had it, she was only with him for the pot of gold at the end of it his inheritance.... Still, it was only a rumour.

duchy

Judi wrote: »

Good grief no. He'd gone with whatever she wanted. It took her 15 years to decide if she wanted to stay with him.... as rumour had it, she was only with him for the pot of gold at the end of it his inheritance.... Still, it was only a rumour.

Not her biggest fan then Judi ?

System

duchy wrote: »

Not her biggest fan then Judi ?

How did you guess?

bugslet

duchy wrote: »

A name change (whether it's the man or woman or combining their names) is as much an outward symbol of marriage as choosing to wear a wedding ring or not. The social convention is you can do it but no-one really cares if you do or not-it's personal choice for both partners and different people have different reasons for doing so -none of those reasons now have anythng to do with the oppression of women and everything to do with a society that offers more social choices than in bygone times.

When I first married in 1980 it would have been socially unusual to have not taken my husbands name - when I remarried in 1991 had I chosen to not take my husband's name no-one would have thought twice about it. Social conventions aren't set in stone but change and evolve (and even revert) even within one lifetime.

I agree with that, but I understand where person one is coming from as had I ever married, I would never have changed my name. It's nearly always women that do it. I can understand wanting the same name as children,but other than that, I don't feel the need.

That and the trucks have my name on, so I'd always use that professionally.

missbiggles1

duchy wrote: »

Really ?

You grew up in a very different 1970s Britain to me then !!!

I didn't grow up in the 70s, I was 20 years old when they started.

missbiggles1

Judi wrote: »

obviously because they want to or they wouldnt would they? No one forces them to.

In many cases, as you can see from threads on here, it's just down to ignorance.

There are plenty of women who still believe that you have to take your husband's name when you marry and that, if you want to take back your own name after divorce, you have to do it formally with a deed poll or similar.

There are regular questions asking about this sort of thing on MSE from women who simply don't know that it's down to individual choice.

missbiggles1

Judi wrote: »

I think your going to have to 'paddle your own boat' on this one.

I for one, like having my husband's surname. I look at it as it is my husbands' gift to me after our marriage. For me personally there would have been no children born to our union without it.

Just, wow!!:eek:

Really?

TonyMMM

missbiggles1 wrote: »

There are plenty of women who still believe that you have to take your husband's name when you marry and that, if you want to take back your own name after divorce, you have to do it formally with a deed poll or similar.

the facts:

Marriage has no effect on anyone's name legally - that is why marriage certificates give both parties names before marriage, with no mention of any name change.

If a woman (or man) chooses to use their spouses name after marriage, that is something for them to decide. They can use their previous name as well if they wish, as many do - keeping personal and professional names different.

It only really becomes an issue when faced with deciding the surname of the children as many have said, although that only started in 1969 (before that birth certificates don't specify a child's surname at all). Couples really need to discuss and agree on that one before they go to register a birth.

No name change requires a deed poll, whether after divorce or not (although it does formally announce the change and make it easier to deal with some officialdom).

Anyone is free to choose/use whatever name they want, so long as it is not for any fraudulent purpose.