Women who keep their married name YEARS after the divorce.

missbiggles1

Pollycat wrote: »

But if you marry quite young - quite usual at the time I'm speaking of - you can still build up your career under your new married name - as I did.

Of course, but most people (both male and female) don't have careers, they have jobs.

Mojisola

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Yes you're right. Thank you. What I meant (and should have said) is that when I was younger, a woman who was a 'Ms' generally tended to be divorced. Very few women who were single went by the term 'Ms,' they were just 'Miss' usually. (But yes, I know 'Ms' means 'single' too.

I think it just depended on who you knew.

I was born in the 1950s and I've been Ms since I was in my late teens.

Andypandyboy

Mojisola wrote: »

Does anyone do that now?

They did at the time Miss Biggles was referring to.

BarryBlue

I divorced my first wife over 20 years ago and she still uses her married name. On the other hand, I married my present wife 3 years ago and she has retained her maiden name. On balance there was no need for her to change it.

missbiggles1

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Same here. I don't think I know any woman actually, who kept her surname when she got married. Even professional women. Only really famous women seem to go by their original name. Like Kate Winslet for example... She has been married 4 times, (I think,) but has always been known as Kate Winslet. Then again, she was very famous before she got married to anyone, and everyone knew her as Kate Winslet.

A few women who were already famous with their maiden name changed it, but not many. One example is Victoria Beckham. She was Victoria Adams before she married David Beckham, and she was famous with the Spice Girls, but most people just knew her as 'Posh Spice,' and didn't necessarily know her surname.





I agree wholeheartedly with Judi. Call me old fashioned, but I would never have had a child out of wedlock. I am not attacking people who do have kids out of wedlock, or saying they are wrong, or I am better than them, but I definitely wanted to be married before I had a baby. And like you Judi, I love me and my husband having the same name.

A woman I know and her partner, had a boy and a girl 2 years apart, back in 2003 and 2005. Several years back when the kids were 7 and 9, the kids started asking why they weren't married.

They explained that they're OK as they are. However, just this summer, they decided to tie the knot, and their son and daughter were over the moon. They were particularly chuffed that they had the same surname as their mother now.

As an aside, I also loathe the term 'Ms.' It just sounds awful to me. It's basically pronounced MUZZ.

Back when I was younger, a Ms was someone who was divorced. (Oh the shame! :rotfl:.)

I am kidding.

If I was single I would just be Miss, and if I was divorced, I would still call myself Mrs, as I was married.

You've missed my post about this.

I'm completely in favour of people having their children after marriage but Judi said she wouldn't have had children if she hadn't changed her name to her husband's which seems pretty extreme to me.

missbiggles1

Andypandyboy wrote: »

They did at the time Miss Biggles was referring to.

That would certainly have been true in the 70s.

When I married my first husband in a Cof E church I was very disappointed not to be able to have the traditional Book of Common Prayer service because that would've meant promising to obey him. We had to have the far less beautiful Alternative Service Book so that I didn't have to promise that - it was a case of principle over poetry.

missbiggles1

Mojisola wrote: »

I think it just depended on who you knew.

I was born in the 1950s and I've been Ms since I was in my late teens.

I think I'm a few years older than you so I've used it since my early twenties as have most of the people I knew then.

It never had any connotation whatsoever - it was simply a completely neutral title that gave no indication whatsoever about marital status, just like Mr.

I think some people may have made certain assumptions which aren't based on fact.

Andypandyboy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

That would certainly have been true in the 70s.

When I married my first husband in a Cof E church I was very disappointed not to be able to have the traditional Book of Common Prayer service because that would've meant promising to obey him. We had to have the far less beautiful Alternative Service Book so that I didn't have to promise that - it was a case of principle over poetry.

We just had the line omitted;) it didn't alter the service, but that was in an RC church.

Slinky

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Goodness, that's even worse - she's even lost her first name now!

How very Princess Michael of Kent.......

(What is that poor woman's name, does anybody know?)

Mojisola

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Goodness, that's even worse - she's even lost her first name now!

I had a few letters addressed to me as 'Mrs Husband's first name and surname' after I got married. I sent them back and insisted that the companies wrote to me using my name in future.