* Why should women take the husband's surname?

[Peter_H_Williams]

My son has recently married a Quebecois in Canada. There is a tradition there that the women retain their surname on marriage (my son found it difficult swallow though my view was that it made no odds). In my office there are two young women, one 26 and the other 30, marrying in September. The man she is marrying's father left the mother shortly after birth and divorced. He had nothing to do with his son's upbringing. She is indignant that she will lose a very unusual family surname and assume the name of a man she despises.

This has set me wondering how much longer women will feel obliged to assume the husbands surname. Wouldn't it be fairer for the couple, each to retain their surname and the children assume the surname of the respective parent of the same sex. It would have a stronger DNA basis (the male Y-Chromosome and the female XX-chromosome both being handed down the gender line).

Has anyone else wondered how long the tradition will last?

Peter Williams (aged 68)

[Valkrider]

Peter

I live in Spain, the tradition here is for the woman to retain her family name on marriage as a second surname and take her husbands name as her first surname. This can certainly help with family research. However, talking to one of the local young ladies more and more women are not doing this on marriage and are retaining their own names (first surname that of their father second surname that of their mother) so it looks like this is not just a Canadian 'thing'.

There will be some interesting challenges for researchers in 100 years time.

[jimlad68]

It makes far more sense to take the female name as you are most often more certain of your mother's mothers' mother's genetic lineage than your father's father's father's. But then it depends if you think in terms of simply genetics or cultural upbringing. But because most societies and families have been controlled by men they have always come first and "made" themselves more important. However, for the future, as in the past, I suspect culture and the prevailing norms, fashions will dictate.

[tatewise]

These days I suspect there is little legislation and couples are free to choose their names.

However, traditions and conventions need a strong will to overcome.
I would be concerned about giving male and female siblings different surnames for the teasing likely at school.

I have never understood how Paternal and Maternal surname retention works beyond a generation or two.
Surely the multiple &/or treble-barrelled surnames soon become unmanageable.
e.g.
If a Smith marries a Jones their surname becomes Smith-Jones.
If a Brown marries a Green their surname becomes Brown-Green.
Then if their children marry does their surname become Smith-Jones-Brown-Green?

[Peter_H_Williams]

Mike
I'm with you on your last point. Double barrel surnames are a pain for others when your alive, though useful in Family History and in my view don't tick the box.

I was seeking a fairer way of keeping the tradition of a surname alive. Children survive far greater problems (mostly poor parenting - I'm sure some think, "I've got that box ticked") today than they are likely to suffer from having a different surname for a sibling - I'm still working for and in daily contact with Primary Schools in my job. To a teachers role now, has in many cases been added surrogate parent.

I had a love years ago, one of three daughters surname Whittey, now lost on that line and a work colleague has an unusual name, Dartnall. My suspicion in Quebec is that they are very keen to keep alive the old French names and I like the idea. Quebec still has many folk traditions based on the Irish and French immigrants which it would be sad to lose.

I notice that only men have contributed but perhaps that is an answer in itself.

Peter

[LornaCraig]

I notice that only men have contributed but perhaps that is an answer in itself.

OK, here’s a female perspective:
Cultural influences are hard to overcome, but they are changing even in the UK. It is becoming more common for married women to continue to use their maiden name for career purposes, especially if they have established a reputation under that name. My newly-acquired daughter-in-law intends to do so.

But for other purposes it is simply much easier in practice to take the husband’s name, because of assumptions that are made in society. I know someone who kept her maiden name when she married but had to spend a great deal of time explaining to people that she was indeed married to the father of her children, who had their father’s surname. And people were never sure whether to call her Mrs, Ms or Miss.

As Jim has pointed we can usually be more confident in tracing a maternal ancestral line than a paternal one. A child’s paternity may be in question but there is not often any doubt about who actually gave birth, so it would make more sense if children traditionally took their mother’s name. But society was male dominated, so that didn't happen.

As to the future, I imagine family groupings will continue to become more ‘fluid’ and conventions will relax. Fortunately for genealogists, we now live in an age when births, marriages and divorces are fully documented so it should be possible to trace relationships in future regardless of what surname people choose to use in everyday life.

[Peter_H_Williams]

Lorna, Jim. I thought it interesting to contemplate where we might be in a hundred years.

I don't think women will be accepting their husband's surname (but then maybe that's an inherently male perspective). I'm one of four boys with three sons. I worked in the construction industry until about 10 years ago and have had much less contact with women than most men. Working now in the construction/education field in an open plan office with young women I have gained a whole new perspective on the world.

Jim's suggestion that husbands take their wives surname, whilst logical before the now ubiquitous DNA testing isn't likely to gain a hold in society, Is it? (perhaps again I'm wrong).

I now understand the extreme inconvenience for a woman having to change her passport, driving licence bank accounts etc. on marriage, all for what reason? If marriage now includes same-sex unions I really can't see what problem society is going to have with people choosing what surname they wish to use or indeed give their children.

In today's society do people really care what surname the child has and whether a couple use the same surname or different ones. I don't think so. Is it more important for a woman than for a man to be to be seen as linked or joined in a relationship? If it is then perhaps in a hundred years things will not change very much. I don't think though that it's reflected in the conversations I now hear.

For the last 20 years I have walked every Saturday, carrying a pack filled with magazines and a now dwindling and retired group of police (we keep it all male) to keep ourselves fit for the mountains and give an ex army PTI instructor someone to shout at. We used to do 18 miles in the Surrey woods, now it's 10. We are always meeting DofE groups, kids loaded down to the gunnel's. The sexes used to be evenly mixed, now I would say it 80% girls (many carrying well over a third of their bodyweight I would guess). Looking at the young male youth today, if I was a women there are not many that I'd be prepared to change my surname for.

Peter

[jimlad68]

It is easy to think when living now in a "relatively" free society that things will keep moving in a particular direction, e.g. health, wealth, free opinions etc, but, especially as genealogists you don't have to look far geographically (or as little as say 150 years back in history) to realise that for most of the time most of the people have had a very tough life with little chance of free thinking or action. The future for most still does not look good, especially as the billions increase, with religion (as a tool of repression) health and lack of wealth.

[mjashby]

Peter,

A couple of interesting articles on this very subject:

Why should women change their names on getting married? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29804450

Here Are Places Women Can’t Take Their Husband’s Name When They Get Married - http://time.com/3940094/maiden-married-names-countries/

and of course there's the related issue:

Mistress, Miss, Mrs or Ms: untangling the shifting history of women’s titles - http://www.newstatesman.com/cultural-ca ... n-s-titles

My own view: "I confidently predict that the convention will become much less the norm, in societies where it is commonly practiced, at around the same time that non-practising christians cease to have their children baptised in church." When that will be, I'll leave to others to speculate on.

Mervyn

[Peter_H_Williams]

Mervyn

WOW! Thank you so much for the BBC and Times link. I had no idea that the Quebec rule was enshrined in Law. The first article made very interesting reading too. It wasn't until my son's marriage in Quebec was mentioned in the office that I realised what a hot potato this is for young women. I'd never thought about it until then (well, I am male!) but once I did I began to realise how affronted I would be to endure having to change my surname and become (as the BBC writer suggests) an entirely different being. I really am very grateful to you.

Peter