Why, in the UK, is a woman expected to change her surname to that of her husband on marriage?

Answer 1

Not sure it's so expected anymore - my new wife will keep her own name and there was never any question of her taking mine...

Answer 2

A women was considered inferior to men in the eyes of the Law and Society so it was obvious that upon marriage she should take his name. In fact, women were regarded as chattels, actually the property of the husband - so having his name was effectively the human equivalent of branding. Now that such views are considered out of date and women are equal with men (eg they have the vote now - which they didn't have in the old days) then it is no longer necessary for the woman to take the man's name - but more merely a matter of tradition or common practice if she does decide to

Answer 3

Its not just in the UK, but everywhere in the world. Its mainly tradition. Another reason is that it is better that husband, wife and children all have the same surname. The majority of women find it honorable to use their husbands surname. It normally shows where her loyalties lie. A women doesn't have to change her name, but you will see that its the women themselves that prefer to use their husbands surname.

Answer 4

'Wrong,' it is not a 'matter of tradition,' it was, in its origins where a woman became (on leaving her home and family) the legal ''property'' of her husband. Thus, by the use of his name, she became an extension of him etc etc.

This 'practise' which may well seem outmoded etc, still holds true in practise in 'eastern' societies, although in the West, we no longer look for 'dowries' and the accompanying (traditional)rituals and local foibles that comes with these practises.

Oh, ah, yes, i nearly forgot. The UK is NOT the only country in the western Hemisphere where this is or has been (changing the surname of the woman to that of the husband) the practise.

Sash..

Answer 5

Tradition. When it started, it was because the world was male dominated, and there was more a sense of the woman 'belonging' to the man.

And so, as it has been done for years, it's what people expect. The expectation is starting to decrease, but it's by no means gone.

Answer 6

It is a tradition dating back to before women were legally allowed to own property.(That said thousands of women did own property but they tended to be the aristocrats).

Unmarried women were regarded as the property of their father, & upon marriage 'ownership' passed to the husband.

An extension of this is that a married woman is 'correctly' known by her husbands full name e.g. Mrs. John Smith. Only when she was a widow was she allowed to use her own Christian name e.g Mrs. Jane Smith. The purpose behind this was to indicate a mature woman was open to offers of marriage. If she kept her former title e.g. Mrs. John Smith, she wouldn't get any gentlemen callers....

Answer 7

Because marriage is an outdated institution - it's from the old days when the man was supposed to be the breadwinner of the family and be in control and the little woman was supposed to stay at home cooking, cleaning and bringing up the family. Hence the proper thing to do was to take the man's name. What a load of crap in this day and age!!

Answer 8

since the husband is the head and both become one in body and spirit, the surname should be same.

Answer 9

You dont have to, I've always been keen on getting rid of mine, but if he had an awful one maybe I would think twice, apparently some couples are now combining their names so that they both have a new one e.g. Thompson and Marshal = Marson

Answer 10

it's the patrilinial tradition. once a woman is married she moves from her father's house to her husband's. some don't change their name depending on education level or personal beliefs.

Answer 11

Good question. It's traditional I guess and it makes more sense for the two or you to have the same last name....not sure why it should be the males name though.......I know a guy called "Jack Ramsbottom"