Wife taking surname

Pixie5740

Marriage isn’t just a piece of paper or a change of name. Married couples have rights and protections that co-habiting couples don’t have. If you’re not bothered about not having those rights and protections don’t get married. If you do want them then get married.

karcher

Judi wrote: »

I think theres no higher honour than taking a mans surname after marriage... HOWEVER.... if he had got a vile surname like Boggs, Cockburn or Pratt i would stick to the surname i have.

I'm surprised at that Judi.

I would never change my name, it's my identity and I'm proud of it.

Taking on someone else's name doesn't make any sense to me and your maiden name could die out in the process (as mine would).

Sorry but I just don't understand why a mans surname is more important than a womans or why it would be 'an honour' to take their name.

They'd be honoured to take mine, but I wouldn't want them to!

Tabbytabitha

Judi wrote: »

I think theres no higher honour than taking a mans surname after marriage... HOWEVER.... if he had got a vile surname like Boggs, Cockburn or Pratt i would stick to the surname i have.

How sweet....... sickly even.

consumers_revenge

Quick judi change your opinion ( to tabithas ) then it will be alright

consumers_revenge

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The “traditionalist” OP never did answer why he chose to put the cart before the horse and have children outside of wedlock given that he is such a traditionalist.

Never said traditionalist, just what was from my era


If you read the thread you would see the reason why but I doubt you bothered.

karcher

OP, do you not realise it is your partners opinion that matters most, and if you love her, you'll respect it.

Compromising is better than making a mountain out of a mole hill, which is what you are doing, imho.

System

Nope not changing my opinion for anyone.

Pixie5740

consumers_revenge wrote: »

Never said traditionalist, just what was from my era


If you read the thread you would see the reason why but I doubt you bothered.

I did read the thread, can you remember what you wrote? Have you imbibed a little too much Christmas sherry.

consumers_revenge wrote: »

OK fair enough from the feedback.


I probably just see the 'disappointment' from a traditional way.


Also just think signing any forms.

You then go on to talk about your parents' era where the woman always took the man's surname. Did you see many children born out of wedlock in that era too?

consumers_revenge wrote: »

As I said it may because in my mum and dads era you never saw it and deffo not the ladies surname. And db surnames were regarded as pretentious ( people probably just don't mention that bit anymore but to each their own )

bugslet

This is probably the most common reason of all for women to not change their name; I'd have to change the name on my trucks:D

Seriously OP it's very common for a woman to not change her name these days. Hell would freeze over before I changed mine.

consumers_revenge

karcher wrote: »

OP, do you not realise it is your partners opinion that matters most, and if you love her, you'll respect it.

Compromising is better than making a mountain out of a mole hill, which is what you are doing, imho.

Honestly I'm not. If she really wants to keep it that up to her, I just find it odd that she wouldn't consider it.


Someone summed it up best when they said its like being part of a team with a team name ( no I'm not taking hers for the 432nd time! ). Bad analogy but best I can do.....Here's the current Chelsea team and Gary Cahill. Hes still part of the team but why is he referred to differently? Is he not part of the team then? Is he 'on loan'? etc etc.


Did make me realise that theres no point in having a marriage but just continue as we are. Finances and future finances are already sorted so apart from a few tax breaks etc....