Closest thing to "civil partnership" for couple who are not same-sex.

LilElvis

HanSpan wrote: »

If the SO and I were to ever get married I'm not sure if I'd be tempted to take his name, or adamant I wouldn't, because of the jokes that would come out of it.

Apologies if I have missed something (I have read bits and pieces of this thread over the last few days), but I thought you were totally "anti" marriage, only thinking of doing so to gain the legal protection it confers, very concerned about the wording of the vows and whether your father's occupation would have to be declared on the documents. I would expect that, for someone who holds such strong views, the idea of taking your partner's surname on marriage would be a complete anathema, especially as this is entirely at your discretion.

HanSpan

LilElvis wrote: »

Apologies if I have missed something (I have read bits and pieces of this thread over the last few days), but I thought you were totally "anti" marriage, only thinking of doing so to gain the legal protection it confers, very concerned about the wording of the vows and whether your father's occupation would have to be declared on the documents. I would expect that, for someone who holds such strong views, the idea of taking your partner's surname on marriage would be a complete anathema, especially as this is entirely at your discretion.

I am
It is.

However I feel the only way to reduce the unpleasantness is to try and only take part in theoretical discussions. So this was theoretical and meant to be purely humorous.

Depending one one's surname the act of joining or changing it can be funny, or awful and embarrasing, or......

I had a job once where I got to see the names of thousands of people. There was someone called "twiggy bush" on the books.

Funny or devilish, or just plain mean to call your child "Twiggy" if your surname is "Bush"?

HanSpan

onlyroz wrote: »

There is quite a good description of how it works here:
http://perez.cs.vt.edu/twolastnames


From the above, Ms Smith Jones would marry Mr Hughes Willis, and would (optionally) change her name to Mrs Smith Hughes. Their children would have a surname of Hughes Smith.

Are Smith and Hughes their forenames? Sorry to be dense. Would they theoretically be Ms Smith Jones or Ms Henrietta Smith Jones for instance?

onlyroz

HanSpan wrote: »

Are Smith and Hughes their forenames? Sorry to be dense. Would they theoretically be Ms Smith Jones or Ms Henrietta Smith Jones for instance?

In Spain you have two parts to your surname. So you'd be Henrietta Smith Jones, where Smith was the first part of your father's surname and Jones was the first part of your mother's surname.

LilElvis

HanSpan wrote: »

I am
It is.

However I feel the only way to reduce the unpleasantness is to try and only take part in theoretical discussions. So this was theoretical and meant to be purely humorous.

Depending one one's surname the act of joining or changing it can be funny, or awful and embarrasing, or......

I had a job once where I got to see the names of thousands of people. There was someone called "twiggy bush" on the books.

Funny or devilish, or just plain mean to call your child "Twiggy" if your surname is "Bush"?

Husband/partner/SO (take your pick!) chaired a meeting - among the other attendees were Cox, Bush and Willey ..... with apologies from Steve Stiff. He still asphyxiates with laughter about it nearly a decade later :rotfl:

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

I am
It is.

However I feel the only way to reduce the unpleasantness is to try and only take part in theoretical discussions. So this was theoretical and meant to be purely humorous.

Depending one one's surname the act of joining or changing it can be funny, or awful and embarrasing, or......

I had a job once where I got to see the names of thousands of people. There was someone called "twiggy bush" on the books.

Funny or devilish, or just plain mean to call your child "Twiggy" if your surname is "Bush"?

Some people revel in having a distinctive name though and actively use a nickname. Maybe they like to be different or noticed.

Again though you sound like you are assuming you'd need to change your name. I'm not keen on my fiances surname but I think he'd be a bit hurt if I didn't use it but I'm as old as you are so odds are most people will still call me by my current surname anyway so I'll probably end up using both depending on the situation.. Really I couldn't be bothered with the faff of changing everything . Most people don't know which surname you use anyway and some people assume I'm Mrs his name anyway. I rarely correct them as it isn't important either way. I'd be more bothered if they got my first name wrong!

ratechaser

Good lord is this thread still going? So is the core argument here that because the traditions of marriage are historically rooted in misogynistic patriarchality; they therefore must be bad however much it has subsequently evolved?

If so I think I'll have a lie in tomorrow because the whole concept of work is clearly also rooted in the old feudalistic system of indentured servitude. And I'm not going to be accused of supporting slavery ��

(Sorry, been a long day, and it's not even Friday...)

mgdavid

HanSpan wrote: »

Are Smith and Hughes their forenames? Sorry to be dense. Would they theoretically be Ms Smith Jones or Ms Henrietta Smith Jones for instance?

I take it you didn't bother to read the link onlyroz kindly provided?

HanSpan

mgdavid wrote: »

I take it you didn't bother to read the link onlyroz kindly provided?

No you're quite right, sorry onlyroz, I should have read it before asking but I was distracted and internet hadn't actually opened the link by the time I answered so I'd forgotten about it.
Its running like a slug at the moment and I don't have a clue why. It could be the PC as the router says its running at a reasonable (for here) speed.
It does cause me some confusion as I often have too many windows open as I get too impatient to wait for one thing before doing the next, or wander off and come back and have lost track of where I was.

Petra_70

ratechaser wrote: »

Good lord is this thread still going? So is the core argument here that because the traditions of marriage are historically rooted in misogynistic patriarchality; they therefore must be bad however much it has subsequently evolved?

If so I think I'll have a lie in tomorrow because the whole concept of work is clearly also rooted in the old feudalistic system of indentured servitude. And I'm not going to be accused of supporting slavery ��

Yeah I thought that too. All this thread is doing now is repeating itself, and so is everyone on it.

I can't get my head around the reasons for the OP not wanting to get married though. They don't make sense to me at ALL.

I do think it's a cheek to expect to have everything positive that marriage brings without getting married though.

As I said earlier, I agree with the old man I used to know who said 'if you can't be bothered to live within the confines of the law, then don't expect the law to protect you.' Don't want to get married? Then don't expect any of the advantages that go with it!

LilElvis wrote: »

Husband/partner/SO (take your pick!) chaired a meeting - among the other attendees were Cox, Bush and Willey ..... with apologies from Steve Stiff. He still asphyxiates with laughter about it nearly a decade later :rotfl:

I think your husband is having you on.