Conference quark::mennotes

<<Guys when you married (or if you marry) did you ever concider taking
<<your wifes name?

Nope!

<<Any thoughts. 

Totally a cultural thing....  Probably cause the same fracuss that was 
stirred up when the first woman did that!

    I will second the nope word. I would take it if she planned on being
    the bread winner and letting me stay home.

    
    I would not nor insist on a mate doing so.

As far as I'm concerned, it's as reasonable as the woman taking her
husband's last name.  It's really more a cultural thing and a vestige of the
notion that a wife is the property of her husband.

When I remarried, my wife and I each kept our original names, though I joked
with my father and stepmother that I was considering taking my wife's name
so as to prolong the line.  I wasn't serious, but my father's jaw dropped to
the floor.

I don't care too much for the hyphenated name concept that many couples use,
as it doesn't extend very well.  However, "what name do you give the kids"
has no good solution, unless you go with something arbitrary such as "girls
take mother's name, boys take father's name" (and why shouldn't it be the
other way around?)

Really - what with the frequency of divorce and blended families, last names
are a fairly meaningless indicator of "relationship" nowadays.

					Steve

    
    
    
    ditto to replies 2,3,&4.................
    
    
    				BR
    

    	There seem to be two uses for a "family name". One of them is as an
    indication of pride of lineage. The other is as a convenience for
    opressive beaurocracy.
    
    	I haven't noticed any use of family names prior to the Roman
    period, and they were much into family feuds. In medi�val English
    literature only the nobility have family names - the rest just have a
    christened name, with sometimes their trade attached. The Scandinavian
    tradition seems to have been (and I believe still is in Iceland) that
    you use your given name, and if that is not sufficiently unique you
    qualify it with the *given* name of the parent of the same sex.
    On this scheme, my name would be Dave Leslieson, my wife would be 
    Mavis Emmasdaughter, and our children might be Jonathan Daveson and
    Merle Mavisdaughter. This shows pride in your family without having a
    family name.
    
    	Unfortunately the beaurocrats don't like schemes like that - it
    confuses them. When the Spanish conquered Holland they decided to take
    a full register of the population and insisted that everyone provide a
    family name. This was a new concept for the Dutch, and I am told that
    in many cases a name was chosen that poked fun at the Spanish officials
    taking the register who couldn't speak Dutch.

re .0

if the child's father feels so strongly about his name, then your ex-brother 
in law will be quite furious that your new b-i-l is going to be "stealing" 
his name!!! 


andreas.

My wife and I both have the same married name, hyphenated from our single
names.  No big deal, but we wanted to express an equal partnership.

If we had known how many times we would be spelling our names over the phone,
we might have thought twice about it.

As for children's names, the issue never came up.  I heard, years later, that
in countries where hyphenation is common children often pick two of the 
four names and hyphenate them.

re .6:  My single name was njal's son, and probably about three hundred years 
old.  Her's was stone-hard, probably given when Bonaparte's empire took a 
census of the German ghettos, less than two hundred years ago.  Family 
legend is that they could afford a bribe to get a reasonable-sounding name.

re .0:  If I were the brother-in-law, I'd say let everybody keep their 
current name, as the least disruptive for the child.  As Steve says, names 
are no longer a guide to relationships.

    As someone who does genealogical research, family names can be a real
    help.  My family name has not changed in 400 years.  I have had an easy
    time with my research.  However with today's younger 
    generation doing all kinds of things with their family names, current
    genealogists are fearful of the nightmares future family history
    researches will have when trying to trace family trees.  If you do not
    believe me, ask anyone who has had their last names "anglosized" by
    immigration officials.
    
     

    	The Icelandic model makes it possible to trace back same-sex
    ancestors. The conventional British/U.S. model makes it possible to
    trace the patriarchal line *only*. Only the indefinitely concatenated
    model makes it possible to trace your family tree back to Adam and/or
    Eve.
    
    	Personally, I am not too worried by genealogists having nightmares.
    They can always switch to another line of business if the stress gets
    too much.
    
    	I know I am descended from a cobbler who lived in Wexford in 1794,
    but it doesn't make a lot of difference in my life.
    
    	There are, of course, purely practical considerations. If anyone
    can prove that I am related to a Monahan who died in Autralia in the
    1880s I would be prepared to give them a percentage of what could be a
    very large sum ;-)

    Speaking of genealogies, I heard a news report the other night that
    said that there was a "native-american" tribe that was though to be
    almost extinct.  They put in a casino on the reservation.  Since
    then people who claim to be at least partially descended from that
    tribe have been coming out of the woodwork.
    fred(); 

    
    
    to the Basenoter,
    
    I think your brother-in-law is being very thoughtful and unselfish in
    considering taking his wife-to-be's divorced surname for the sake of
    her child.  Many men would NEVER consider this, taking the name of
    your beloved's EX ............
    
    Takes alot of guts if you ask me!
    
    

    Why does he think it will be difficult on the child to have a different
    last name? If the child is old enough to be aware of his father by
    birth, I don't see how your b-i-l will solve anything by changing his
    name. This is not the only child in the world, and probably not the
    only child in the school systems, to be in this type of family. The
    natural father is going to be a pain in every way imaginable by the
    sound of the basenote. What he and wife to be should do is work on him
    to allow your b-i-l to adopt the child as his own. If the ex-husband is
    paying lots of $$$ in support, it often appeals to the old wallet
    sense. Worked for me. By doing that also he is cut out of the picture
    for child-support or any legal say in what goes on in the new family. A
    lot depends on the ex's visitation rights, etc. as to how miserable he
    can make their lives. If the ex-wife in the situation wants to put it
    to her ex for as many years as possible with child support payments,
    then that might not be feasible for your b-i-l. Sure makes it all
    exciting. My wife used the approach with her ex, "You don't allow him
    (myself) to adopt the kids, I will haul your ass into court every time
    you miss a support payment". The old sledge-hammer-between-the-eyes
    approach worked just fine. Just some thoughts your b-i-l and his future
    wife might consider in "reasoning" with the ex.

    For all those still looking at this, he has now changed his name to
    match his divorced partners married name.  In the UK this is done by
    deed pole (sp) so this is the name he uses for tax returns. (That makes
    anything official, no?)
    
    R. Michael.