Women who keep their married name YEARS after the divorce.

duchy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

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.

Not just ordinary women either
When I was booking my 2nd marriage the registrar got sniffy that I had reverted to my maiden name without doing a deed poll and told me I should have done. I pointed out there was absolutely no need to do so as it can be changed "by common usage " which is perfectly legal. When pushed she grudgingly admitted that I was right .

I suspect a lot of people pay for changing their names when they don't need to.

Pollycat

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Just, wow!!:eek:

Really?

My much younger sister wouldn't have kids before she got married.

I don't agree with this though:

Judi wrote: »

I look at it as it is my husbands' gift to me after our marriage.

A bit too sentimentalist slush for me.

Andypandyboy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Most of my friends were (and still are) feminists - that's probably the reason for the difference.

Yo can be a "feminist" in the true sense of the word (rather than a militant bra burning one;)) and still change your name on marriage.

I would far rather a woman choose to change her name on marriage than take the traditional wedding vows promising to "obey" her husband.

Mojisola

Andypandyboy wrote: »

I would far rather a woman choose to change her name on marriage than take the traditional wedding vows promising to "obey" her husband.

Does anyone do that now?

TonyMMM

"obey" is only part of the old CofE church marriage vows and has been optional for a very long time. It doesn't appear in any standard civil ceremony vows.

lazer

I changed my name on marriage as my husband and I are now a family, and families share a surname, may not be a popular view, but it's the way we wanted it.


Only 1 woman I know who has got married hasn't changed their name.


It's very difficult to write formal invitations etc now as there are so many variations.


Mr & Mrs John Smith is much easier to write and to understand than Ms Ann Jones and Mr John Smith.

Gloomendoom

lazer wrote: »

I changed my name on marriage as my husband and I are now a family, and families share a surname, may not be a popular view, but it's the way we wanted it.

It's a very popular view. That is what the majority of couples do.

A minority wish they didn't.

System

TonyMMM wrote: »

"obey" is only part of the old CofE church marriage vows and has been optional for a very long time. It doesn't appear in any standard civil ceremony vows.

Good job really, I wouldnt have agreed to it anyway.:)

brewthebear

once you marry and change your name thats who you are I have been divorcerd 20 years not remarried but I am not Miss xxxxx from my single days but Msxxxxxxx the name I took for 20 years when I married why would I want to change it back

LE3

brewthebear wrote: »

once you marry and change your name thats who you are I have been divorcerd 20 years not remarried but I am not Miss xxxxx from my single days but Msxxxxxxx the name I took for 20 years when I married why would I want to change it back

ABSOLUTELY!

Let's consider a young lady called Mary Brown. In her early 20s she meet John Parker, and a couple of years later they get married. She decides to change her name to Mary Parker. Both are in their early career stages and move away from their home town for work, change jobs a couple of times in the next few years - Mary establishes herself in a career as Mary Parker & gains additional qualifications etc. Her friends know her as Mary Parker, her colleagues know her as Mary Parker, she IS Mary Parker

A few years down the line, Mary & John divorce. They don't have children (I say this 'cos people seem to understand the woman keeping her name when she's got children but not if she doesn't!)
Why should she be forced to become Mary Brown again?
Mary feels that Mary Brown is the girl she was as a child, not the professional woman she is now - she's been Mary Parker for a long time & that is her name. nobody knows who Mary Brown is. Mary & John aren't particularly hostile so she doesn't feel the need to distance herself completely from "his name", she feels that the last few years have made her the person she is now & she doesn't feel the need to pretend it never happened - she is Mary Parker. Her professional qualifications/contacts etc are as Mary Parker & most of all she doesn't want to have to explain a name change to everybody she's ever worked with ... customers, suppliers, colleagues etc (they would probably assume she's just got married & that's the reason for her name change which would make it doubly awkward for everyone!)

If MARY is happy to be Mary Parker for the rest of her life, why shouldn't she? It's a name - HER name, it may have originated from her ex-husband just as her maiden name originated from her parent, but it doesn't mean that it's not her name.
I understand that people may be a little confused if Mary Parker marries again to say Peter Jones, and decides to stay as Mary Parker - but why shouldn't she? She may decide to become Mary Jones, but if she doesn't want to change her name again, that doesn't mean she's still attached to her ex ... It might just mean that she feels as she did when she got divorced - it's HER name now, and that's what she wants to remain. She might not want the hassle of changing/explaining her name change, or may just want to stay as Mary Parker for professional reasons just as people do all the time the first time they get married. If Peter is happy with his wife being Mary Parker, why is it anyone else's concern?