Wife taking surname

White_musk

I'm old fashioned and think a wife should take her husbands name. Now, as a widow it's a comfort for me to have his name.

Gavin83

BrassicWoman wrote: »

If you think there needs to be a ring, and a proposal rather than a discussion.... then sure, whoever feels like doing it!

michelle09 wrote: »

Of course. Honestly, I would be worried if any discussion of marriage came from one party with no input of the other. I have an engagement ring because my husband is traditional enough (and worked in a jewellers) to want to buy one. I said multiple times that I was happy without one.

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Your assumption would be correct.

Excellent.

I’ll leave you to continue your argument with the others!

BrassicWoman

Gavin83 wrote: »

Excellent.

I’ll leave you to continue your argument with the others!

I'm not arguing. I can tell genuine enquiry from "poking the bear with sticks"!

Tabbytabitha

martinbuckley wrote: »

If she is happy being the odd one out in your family unit then so be it. My wife took my name before we wed because she didn't want to be the odd one out as our child had my surname from birth.

It would be a cold day in hell before I'd give a child of mine the surname of a man who wasn't my husband!

martinbuckley

Mojisola wrote: »

Some of the youngsters in our family have been given their mother's surname - if that had been the case in your family, would you have changed your name so that you weren't the odd one out?

If they were my children then they'd already have my surname. Are you saying you inherited someone else's offspring and then had some of your own?

Mojisola

martinbuckley wrote: »

If they were my children then they'd already have my surname.

Are you saying you inherited someone else's offspring and then had some of your own?

No, I am saying that some of the children in my wider family have been given their mother's surname, eg. an unmarried couple, John Smith and Anne Jones, have a child and her name is Mary Jones (not their real names).

martinbuckley

Why would I want to change my surname to that of my nieces & nephews?

In case you'd missed the point, we are discussing husband and wife here.

unholyangel

The whole "if you're not taking my name, theres no point getting married" is distasteful to me. If the only reason you want to get married is so you can mark your territory, its unlikely to be a healthy lasting relationship.

Likewise all the excuses of "want us to have the same name" just come across as bluster as that could be achieved by taking her name but you're not open to that.

Why do you feel its unreasonable of your partner to not want your name when you quite clearly don't want theirs? Have they suggested getting married is pointless unless you take their name?

Relationships take communication & compromise. If you want everything your own way then do yourself & partner a favour and stay single.

Mojisola

Mojisola wrote: »

an unmarried couple, John Smith and Anne Jones, have a child and her name is Mary Jones (not their real names).

martinbuckley wrote: »

Why would I want to change my surname to that of my nieces & nephews?

In case you'd missed the point, we are discussing husband and wife here.

I think you must be being deliberately missing the point.

In the example above, John Smith and Anne Jones had a child who was given the surname of the mother.

They later married and both parents and the child kept their own surnames.

You seem to assume that every child gets given the father's surname and that the mother should change her name so that the family all have the same name.

In the case of the family above, the father would have to change his name for the whole 'team' to share a surname.

74jax

Gavin83 wrote: »

I’m assuming those who feel women shouldn’t change their name also feel men and women should be the person proposing equally, rather than an expectation that it’ll be the man who proposes and purchases the ring.

Yeah totally, but who wouldn't?