Conference quark::mennotes-v1

 DIVORCE HER!! It gets easier each time. Just make sure you've got anything
 worth anything stashed away where she, her lwayer, and the court can't find 
 it...

/harold

I had an uncle who did it; I remember (I was quite young at the time) that
the family were deeply shocked, and his parents refused to talk to either
him or his wife for several years afterwards.

/. Ian .

    
    Re .1, and yet women are expected to change their names and raise
    all their children with the man's last name!  I fail to see how
    you can justify this double standard.  I hope you were joking because
    if you are serious you're reply is, in my opinion, sickening.
    
    Lorna
    

    My base note might have been sexual-prefrence-centric. What about
    when men marry men? I'm not interested (here) in how men think about
    women; I'm interested in how men think of their last name, and the
    last name of the one they love. 
    	Mez

    When we got married my wife took my last name. It would never
    occurred to me to force her to. In fact, I don't think keeping
    here 'maiden' name occurred to her until I brought it up. 
    
    		Alfred

    I tried to get my wife to keep her own name.  I had no desire for
    her to take my last name, and it was clear to me that changing all
    the credit card, bank account, SSN, etc. names would be a giant
    pain in the a**.
    
    If a woman wanted me to take her name, I'd tell her to jump in a
    lake.
    
    If a woman feels a need to take her husbands name, well OK, but
    I personally think it is an outdated concept.

    In my next marriage. I will _insist_ that the lady keep her own name
    and any children that result from the marriage will have their names
    decided upon then. 
    
    I don't need status trips and view the name change as a sign of
    _change_ in status.  
    
    On childrens names we could:
    
    o	Flip a coin for the last name for all children;
                                                      
    o	Flip a coin for each child;
    
    o	Have the children take my last name;
    
    o	Have the children take her last;  (I am a special case!)
    
    o	Have the children take the name of some other "famous" person.
                      (Just a possibility, don't panic);
                                   
    I totally refuse to play the "name game".  The wife can be a MS.
    not a Mrs., but then agin it is _her_ choice.
    
       Mikie?

        .8: We've already decided that if we have any children, they'll
        get a combination of our names.  The combination was actually
        invented for us, as a joke, by some friends... they kept
        sneaking it in on letters and such, and we sorta got to like
        it.  Butenhof + Bazemore = Butenmore (they were originally
        Barbara's friends, so they tried Bazenhof first, but that
        just doesn't have the same ring to it).  Of course, we got
        back at them by calling them Bonsavage...
        
        	/dave

    Back to the original question of "would I take HER name?"
    
    I think it depends on the individual situation.  If you've no
    attachment to your name, it shouldn't present a problem, altho it
    might be inconvenient because of accounts/credit cards, etc.
    
    Personally, I'd prefer to retain my own simply because I'm the last
    of my family line (on this branch of the ole tree) and I'd like
    the opportunity for the name to not die out should there be rug
    rats (perhaps we could compromise on one of them carrying the name?).
    
    Steve
    

    
    Personally, I have a strong attachment to my last name, due to the
    "end-of the-tree" syndrome mentioned above, so I simply could not
    easily accept another last name.  However, I can see no reason other
    than social convenience for my wife to assume my name.
    
    When I married, my wife chose to assume my name; we actually never
    discussed it.  When we divorced, she changed it back.  Was it worth
    it?  Maybe yes, maybe no, but I believe the process was spurred
    by social convention rather than any real need or desire.  Many
    of my male friends, however, have mentioned they feel somewhat
    threatened(?) if their spouse carries her own name.  Again, other
    than some basic male insecurities, social convention is most likely
    to blame.
    
    Where children are concerned, social conventions are but one aspect
    of the problem.  There are a number of legal issues surrounding
    the selection and use of names without a court order and/or bench
    opinion.  Most of the couples I know use the husband's last name
    for the children, rather than the wife's or a hyphenated composite,
    to provide a wider acceptance base for the practice, to eliminate
    confusion with the child and his/her environment (school, doctors,
    etc) and to provide a cohesion point for the family unit.  I think
    it will be a very long time before any other practice is socially,
    and, yes, legally acceptable.  (For the record, the states of NY,
    VT, CA, and FL have the most lenient position on name use, while
    the states of IA, IL, TX, and VA are rather strict.  The Federal
    Government defers to the states in all cases except those involving
    specific matters where a child is a custody of the F.G., such as
    in Social Security support matters.)
    
    I guess a few thoughts, no point, it's very late (early).
    

	When I got married my wife took my name and we both value the fact 
that we have the same name. It is symbolic somehow that we are now united 
as a single entity. As the good book says "and the two shall become one" 
and in marriage my wife and I have become a new greater partnership is is 
more than two individuals and is a single unit. 

	I think I should find it hard to take my wifes name on marriage for
reasons of conditioning mostly but I do beleive that having the same name
is part of being married. 


Peter

I think you've all missed the point, although your own preferences are of 
course equally valid.

Look at it this way, what is the purpose of a surname in the first place? 
Originally it was to identify which family grouping an individual belonged to, 
although it later became associated with groups of tradesmen (a different
social grouping), and later still with the area or town an individual "came"
from (another social grouping). I would have thought that the absence of a 
convention either way (as to who takes what name) would tend to erode this 
"grouping" habit, and we all know how us humans love to "group".

Personally, speaking as one whose name actually changes depending on which 
country I'm in, I'm not really that bothered about what name a future Mrs. 
Sadat would take: hers is going to change as much as mine does whether she 
likes it or not! As for children, I would be ultra-conservative on this one,
and *insist* that all children not only take my family name, but also my first 
name as their middle name, girls included!

Good job I don't get the chance to put it into practise, eh?

Tarik.

    One of my favorite stories on this topic (since you asked) were
    two friends of mine, Bill Glickman and Amy Ritzenberg. They got
    married and both changed their name. They're now Dr. and Dr. Bug!
    
    He was less attached to his last name than to the idea of forming
    a brand new family unit with Amy.
    	Mez

    re .16:
    
    > He was less attached to his last name than to the idea of forming
    > a brand new family unit with Amy.
      
    That is what I believe marriage is all about. Maybe *this* will
    become the tradition in the future.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    	When I got married I had my wife change her last name to mine,
    	but being a sensitive 80's kinda guy I decided to let her change
    	my first name so she wouldn't feel exploited or something. 
    	She calls me Sir.

    	Jake

    
    Wendy and I share one surname, mine. It was a matter of choice.
    We jointly decided that one name showed we are as one, as to my
    name, not hers, well, would you prefer Allnutt to Leslie? :-)
    

    Personally I find the custom of changing a woman's last name to
    the husband's to be barbaric, but it makes sense if the woman is
    of the ilk that she's gonna settle down and make raising his kids
    and cooking his dinners into her life's work.  Now if the man were
    to settle down and become a 'househusband', then turnabout is fair
    play.
    
    My surname was created by the clark at Ellis Island  who processed
    my grandfather's entry.  His previous surname probably was assigned
    by fiat a couple of generations earlier.  Our people's  "real" names
    are  based on the  patronymic, thus you can  only be  traced back one
    generation.  In  the interest  of  fair  play, I  would  accept naming
    one's daughters via the matronymic, but it's not looked highly upon
    yet.
    
    Under Common Law as viewed by the Mass. S.J.Court, your *real* name
    is whatever you say it is, if it's not fraudulent.

Well, I've offered my "male point of view" (gag choke gasp wheeze) in
 WOMANNOTES already, but for those who haven't seen it . . .

I think it's nice for a family to have one name, but I see no reason why pref-
 erence should be given to one partner's name.  The solution my S.O. and I have
  picked is to take a "family name."

I suppose, if one really wanted to, one could replace their last name with the
 family name (e.g., Dr. & Dr. Bug).  We're going to be a bit less radical than
  that; the family name will become a second middle name for us, and a last
   name for our children.  (We've selected "Heart" as the family name.)

So here I am, professionally established as Jym Dyer, so after the marriage
 I'll be known as Jym Heart DYER (or just Jym Dyer) in my professional life.
  When dealing with the PTA or a pediatrician, I'll be Jym HEART Dyer:  the
   emphasis will show the connection to the child, whose last name will be
    "Heart."

The only problem with this is coming up with a family name.  It took us a few
 years to come up with "Heart."  (It's derived from a seemingly telepathic
  experience that happened with us early in our relationship, involving a
   heartbeat.)
    <_Jym_>

To answer the other questions bubbling around . . .

I have no particular attachment to my last name, probably because I have no
 particular attachment to my father.

I wouldn't want to change my name to my wife's last name because I don't think
 that just changing the sexes of the people involved is the proper solution to
  a sexist situation.
   <_Jym_>

>So here I am, professionally established as Jym Dyer, so after the marriage
> I'll be known as Jym Heart DYER (or just Jym Dyer) in my professional life.
>  When dealing with the PTA or a pediatrician, I'll be Jym HEART Dyer:  the
>   emphasis will show the connection to the child, whose last name will be
>    "Heart."

So what happens when the pediatrician want to contact you at work? I would have 
thought that one of the purposes of a name is that it is a universal 
identifier, which it won't be in this case, because you get to choose what name 
you use in which circumstances. At least when I change my name I don't have any 
choice.

Tarik.

    Re: .23
    
    	I thought it was kinda funny at first also,  but realized that
    	he is actually doing his children a favor.  They can always say "Jym
    	Dyer?  Nah, never heard of him.".

    	Jake

what about something dumb like the girls get the mother's
name and the boys get the father's name?

{RE .25} - Who needs more divisions by sex?  Besides, that presumes that
 the couple is heterosexual.
  <_Jym_>

	Why does it really matter...or rather does it really matter?


Richard.

Re: .26
>{RE .25} - Who needs more divisions by sex?  Besides, that presumes that
> the couple is heterosexual.
>  <_Jym_>

Are you suggesting that homosexual couples can have children?!!!?

Tarik.

    re: 27
    Yes, another way to reword the opening question. Who does it matter
    to (ie - who would mind changing their name for someone they love)
    and why does it matter to those it does matter to (those who say
    "heck no!"). It seems to me it matters to alot of the people who
    have responded. Besides what's physically me, there are few things
    I think of as more personal than my name. Perhaps that's not the
    case with you?
    
    re: 28
    Homosexual couples can (and do) adopt.
    	Mez

        also re .27:
        
        Traditionally, men have been expected to fight to "protect
        the honor of their family name".  Women have been expected
        to casually give it up.  Something very twisted lies behind
        this distinction.
        
        It doesn't matter to me if a woman changes her name... at
        marriage or at any other time.  It doesn't matter to me if
        a *man* changes his name at marriage or any other time. 
        It doesn't matter to me if they *both* change their names
        at marriage or any other time.  What bothers me very much
        is that women are *expected* to, and men are expected *not
        to*.
        
        Does that make it more clear?
        
        	/dave

    In today's world of divorce and remarriage, having kids with last
    names different than their parents is hardly an issue.  The example
    of the doctor wanting to call the parent at work is not a problem
    - the parents would have left their full names and work numbers
    with the doctor, and that's what she'd refer to when calling.
    
    Of my mother's four boys, there are three different last names!
    					Steve

RE. Note 29.30 by KALKIN::BUTENHOF "Approachable Systems" >
>               -< individual choice is fine: intimidation isn't >-

>        Traditionally, men have been expected to fight to "protect
>        the honor of their family name".  Women have been expected
>        to casually give it up.  Something very twisted lies behind
>        this distinction.
        
	Dave, I think you are confused between what is historical and what 
is twisted. Back in the dark days of history, and far from society's 
credit, women were regarded as "property" and of little value unless she 
produced sons to follow in their fathers footsteps. The woman was seen as a 
field in which the man sowed his seed.

	As a result of this UNJUSTLY low opinion of women many wrongs were 
committed; divorce was easy for a man and impossible for a woman, women 
were expected to be faithful in marriage and men not so, men might have 
several wives but a woman only one husband. Much of this is gone and women 
in modern society are treated as equals. (No flames please. This is true 
most of the time for most people but I accept there are exceptions.)

	However, despite the changed and changing attitudes of society, 
much of peoples expectations and our traditions are based on our history. 
It made sense, with the historical view of women, that a woman should 
change her name on marriage. Now the logic of it has gone but the tradition 
has been formed:- "Women have always changed their names on marriage".

	Now to the meat of what I am trying to say. This is not as you 
suggest something twisted, nor is it some great conspiracy by men to lord 
it over women. This is merely what people have come to expect and as people 
are generally conservative (small C!) they tend to view anything that does 
not fit with their expectations with suspicion.

	While this must be a valid topic for debate, let us try to refrain 
from painting a picture of a vile male plot to keep women "pregnant and 
bare foot in the kitchen."

Peter.

re .32:

Well said Peter!

Meanwhile I am the last male in a family line that has been in Britain
since 1066 (and all that!). My family would very much like me to have
children and also that they be called KERRELL. My wife has taken my name
because she didn't like her old one much so no problems there.

My problems is do I want children for any other reason than to avoid the
pressure from my family and society?

Dave.

>    have responded. Besides what's physically me, there are few things
>    I think of as more personal than my name. Perhaps that's not the
>    case with you?
    
	Well I consider my personality to be a trice more personal than my name
and changing my name is not going to change my personality! (in normal 
circumstances!)
	For the most part we can all change our names, most folks stay with 
that name they started with. A name is a personal identifier, nothing more, 
people getting worked up about tradition, sexism (usually more imagined than 
real), and married women adopting the name of their husband, really amazes me!
	In Britain at least there is no legal requirement to adopt any name 
under any circumstances, and you can indeed have any name you want for any 
circumstance, (as long as it is not fraudulent), one assumes that in the rest
of the civilised world it is the same. Why, then, should there be any pressure
on a woman to change her name to that of her husband, what possible purpose 
does it serve in this day and age. Maybe to label her as his possession???
	I think that this my have been a valid topic twenty or more years ago
but in our enlightened, "liberated", equal(ish) and liberal society, I feel 
that it is a probibly a waste of space.

from one who delights in the name of

Richard Keville-Evans

>	Dave, I think you are confused between what is historical and what 
>is twisted. Back in the dark days of history, and far from society's 
>credit, women were regarded as "property" and of little value unless she 
>produced sons to follow in their fathers footsteps. The woman was seen as a 
>field in which the man sowed his seed.
>
>	As a result of this UNJUSTLY low opinion of women many wrongs were 
>committed; divorce was easy for a man and impossible for a woman, women 
>were expected to be faithful in marriage and men not so, men might have 
>several wives but a woman only one husband.
        
        Like I said... traditional, and twisted.
        
        	/dave

{RE .33} - And if your wife's name was the last in a long line?
 <_Jym_>

> {RE .33} - And if your wife's name was the last in a long line?

She might be put under the same pressure as me from her family, all
depending on whether it bothered them.

My reason for note .33 was to point out the pressures of such actions,
sometimes family ties are more important than personal conviction.

Dave.

	The question is much more one of dealing with relatives and society
at large than it is one of personal choice. 

	The current scheme of attaching a man's name to his wife and children
has specific benefits in holding a family together - 

1)	It applies a common handle that references the whole family.  Sharing
a name puts one in a slightly better frame of mind for sharing other things
as well. 

2)	It makes it a little harder for the man to wander off and leave the
rest of the family in the lurch.  Socially, the man is the weak link in the
traditional family.  If he is no longer around, the family is usually in for
a hard time. 

3)	It identifies a group of people who have enough concern for each
other and social custom to have followed tradition.  These people can be
expected to be a little more reliable than those who do not follow tradition.
They will be treated slightly better on average as a result. 

Re .33 

> And if your wife's name was the last in a long line? 

	If I remember correctly, her family would have to option of offering
some inducement for the man to break with tradition.  This has happened many
times.  The man's family often resent the resulting situation and there is
often hard feelings as a result.  History has a number of examples of this. 

        .38: points 1, 2, and 3; absolutely 100% untrue on each count.
        Since each of these absurd opinions have been expressed and
        rebutted several times previously, even within this note, I
        won't bother repeating the details, and I hope you'll read
        all the other replies and consider them before adding to
        the repetition.
        
        Of course, there's no rule against repetition... it's just
        boring.
        
        	/dave

Dave:

	I generally read all replies available before I open my mouth.  This 
instance was not exceptional.  I get the impression you did not read what I
wrote.  I put in a lot of qualification that you have apparently ignored and
you may have read more into what I wrote than is there.  For example,
statement 1 applies to any family name, be it the husband's, wife's or chosen
at random.  You deny that a family name provides a referent for the family
group.  What planet do you come from anyway?  You deny that people may take
pride in their names.  You may not be interested in what the other Buanhauf's
are doing, but I am at least mildly interested in what the other Woodbury's
are doing.  (I am also interested in what the TenEyck's, Cannon's, Gottsch's
and Atkin's are doing since I, my brothers and father use matrilineal family
names as middle names.) 

	Opinions by their very nature are not rebuttable.  They are
statements of belief, not logical arguments.  Logic will sometimes change
them but never rebut them.  Other's opinions will sometimes be considered and 
may have some effect.  Your lack of understanding, thoughlessness and
rudeness make your opinions valueless and beneath consideration. 

{RE .38} - Gosh, I never realized that having us all named Dyer made it so
 difficult for my father to wander off and leave us in a lurch.  Poor guy.
  <_Jym_>

        .40: You obviously are unable to make a distinction between your
        opinion and fact.  If you say that *you* wouldn't feel like a
        family without the same name, I'll say "fine"; that's your
        problem. When you say *nobody* can feel like family without the
        same name, I'll disagree... because I don't happen to share your
        problem in that area.  It's interesting, but not of much
        consequence to me, that you consider me "thoughtless and rude"
        for disagreeing with you. 
        
        	/dave

Re .41:

	I didn't say it MADE him stay around.  Are you saying it didn't help?

Re .42:

	You also seem to ignore facts when you disagree with them.  You also 
seem to state your opinions as facts.

	One opinion widely held in the psychological community is that human
behavior is 'over determined'.  That is there is almost always more than one
reason or motive for doing anything.  (I get the implication from this that
people looking for 'the true reason' someone has done something are usually
oversimplifying the situation.)  I mentioned a number of factors that might
have some weight with most people and you claim that no one gives them any
weight because you don't give them any weight.  I know you are wrong because 
I can come up with at least one counter example.

	If you had said, that the effect of sharing a name was small and
could be easily outweighed by other factors, I would point out that I said
originally the effect was slight, not overwhelming.  DAMN IT, READ WHAT I SAID, 
NOT WHAT YOU THINK I SAID!  (Now that was rude of me, and I apologize to the 
rest of you who are reading this file.)

        A-hem.  Well, Max, I owe you a bit of an apology.  I just
        decided to go back and clip some of your specific and incorrect
        "statements of fact" to demonstrate my point... and found that
        my mission (in regards to this little subargument with you
        personally) is to eat my foot or try to spit it out gracefully. 
        
        In specific, I noticed that my first reply to you was a bit
        overheated considering that what I replied to was in fact your
        first entry in this topic.  What I was really blowing up about
        was seeing the same old opinions dragged out again. And while
        your expression of them was *not* in fact as "absolute rules"
        but rather explicitly as statements of personal preference,
        several of the previous incarnations of that viewpoint *have*
        been labelled as "statements of universal truth". 
        
        Of course (sigh), that's really no excuse for blowing up
        at you, or for knocking the subject back and forth 4 or 5
        times before I bothered to review the earlier replies.  Anyway,
        I hereby apologise for the tone of some of my replies to
        you... particularly the first.
        
        To get away from the personal stuff, however, and back to
        the topic under discussion, I still say you're over
        generalizing, even by saying "most", or "many".  As I said
        before, if you want to say that *you* personally feel more
        of a family sharing the same name, or even that you and some
        friends you know feel that way... I've got no problem with
        it.  I don't feel that way at all, and I know many others
        who agree with me.  A name, to us, simply has nothing to
        do with what "being a family" means... not even "little",
        or "outweighed by other factors"... it has *nothing* to do
        with being a family.
        
        Additionally, you haven't exactly been innocent of the crimes
        of distortion and unpleasantness.  For one thing, unlike
        your claim in .43, I never said or even implied that "nobody
        gives them any weight [because I don't]".  In fact, I said
        I was perfectly willing to admit that you considered them
        important... I may not have said so *nicely*, but I did say
        so.
        
        As to whether anybody *should* give them any weight... well,
        that's what this discussion is all about, now isn't it?
        
        	/dave
        
        	/dave

	Thank you, Dave, for the apology. 

	It was your first reply where you said that I was '100% wrong' that
bothered me the most and that combined with your later statements to generate
the "nobody gives them any weight [because I don't]".  I take it that what
you meant to say was something to the effect of "I disagree with you
strongly" instead of saying I was wrong or a liar. 

	I do sometimes over generalize.  That is one of the reasons why I am
careful with my qualifications. 

	I suspect that the weight a person gives to a name depends on how
much he knows about the name.  (There are other factors of course.)  I, for
instance, know that my branch of the Woodbury family were pioneers in
settling part of the western U.S., and that the name came into north America
from England sometime in the 1600s.  I also know that other of my ancestors
have equally illustrious histories.  If I did not know their family name, I
would not be able to identify them and their relation to me as easily.
Exactly what this has to do with me, my wife and children is slightly
debatable but is also a very personal and sensitive issue. 

	This really does not belong in the last (and usually most significant
place), but the flow of the discussion puts it here.  The family name has
religious connotations.  It is identified with the parents of the family and
this brings in the biblical exhortation to honor the parents.  I am not
saying that the meaning of the injunction may not have been twisted when it
is applied to the name instead of the individuals, but it is a factor when
considering the overall reaction of people to family names.  (This is not an
endorsement of the practice, or a condemnation of those who do not follow the
practice.  Just an observation of an apparently relevant attitude.) 

>	I suspect that the weight a person gives to a name depends on how
>much he knows about the name.  (There are other factors of course.)  I, for
>instance, know that my branch of the Woodbury family were pioneers in
>settling part of the western U.S., and that the name came into north America
>from England sometime in the 1600s.  I also know that other of my ancestors
>have equally illustrious histories.  If I did not know their family name, I
>would not be able to identify them and their relation to me as easily.
        
        Interesting point... though I'm not sure I could really agree.
        One could feel pride in one's ancestors even if they didn't
        have the same name.  It's highly unlikely that the ancestors
        of your mother, father's mother, etc. had the same name as
        you... yet their accomplishments are part of your heritage
        none the less, and no less worthy of pride.
        
        Furthermore, while tracing ancestors *is* difficult without
        the common name, it's far from impossible... however, consider
        that, as I said, you have authentic ancestors who never had
        your name anyway... and not everyone with the same name is
        related to you.  Furthermore, the spelling of even simple
        names changed from generation to generation, often radically,
        once you get very far back.  Simply looking for "your name"
        in records wouldn't make things much easier for you.  I know,
        I have a great-uncle who spent years, and a lot of travelling,
        tracing our family back to their villages in Europe (many
        came over before the Pilgrims even heard of the New World).
        
        Tracing family lines involved procedures such as locating family
        bibles and looking for the names of children, spouses, etc.
        written in the leaves.  Record keeping has improved quite a
        bit... everyone (or at least, virtually everyone) now has a
        publicly recorded birth certificate on file with the full names
        of both parents... having the same name will cause little if any
        effect on the ease of a geneology search by your descendents.
        
        If you really want to contrast the importance of names with
        pride in the family which passed on that name, though... Well, I
        know quite a bit about the Van Eps family... like I said, they
        were among the founders of some of the very early Dutch
        settlements in America; there are very very few people not of
        native American ancestry (and I've got some of that, too, on
        that side) who have deeper roots in the country... and yeah,
        that's kinda nice to know.  But Van Eps was the name my mother's
        mother gave up when she married John Hartman.
        
        Butenhof, on the other hand... well, my father's family came
        over here pretty recently... just 4 or 5 generations ago.  But
        even worse, I've got no genetic relationship whatsoever with
        anyone named Butenhof in Germany (or if I do, it's strictly
        coincidental). You see, my (great?)grandfather's father died,
        and his mother married a guy named Butenhof. My
        (great?)grandfather was never formally adopted, but preferred
        his stepfather, and began to use his name.  When *his* son
        was born, the name Butenhof was on his birth certificate,
        making it his legal name... but it's not like there's much
        meaning to it.  So maybe that does have something to do with
        my attitude.  A name is just a name.  It means nothing...
        or whatever you want to imagine it means.  If I actually
        shared a name with the Dirk Van Epps who sailed to America
        400 years ago or whatever, maybe I'd feel different... but
        I doubt it.
        
        	/dave

Are there still countries where someone named John X will
have a son named Pete JOHNson who will have a son named
X PETERson, etc.?  If so, how do they deal with name changes
at marriage?  In that case, the name actually means something
(and something that would be "incorrect" for the wife, so
to speak).

	Dave, you have another part of what I was saying, and of course said
it better and in more detail.  My father, brothers and I have middle names
taken from old family last names.  My middle name is my mother's mother's
last name.  It caused me more than a little trouble in school, but I like it.
I have been a little less careful and a little more conventional in selecting
names for my daughters. I used first names from my family history rather than
last names.  My wife objected to doing it the other way.  The selection of
names is complex and influenced by many factors. 

	While it has apparently not happened in your family nor in mine,
there are some areas where common ancestors are much more frequent.  It will
happen when cousins of any degree and removal marry. 

	There is more to family than genetics.  It is possible (but VERRRY
unlikely I admit) for a natural brother and sister to be totally unrelated
genetically, but they are still part of the same family.  That step great
grandfather (or what-ever) apparently had a strong influence.  Your family
and you would have been different without him. 

        This is really off the subject, but in following the Van Eps line,
did you run across any TenEycks.  They are also early Dutch settlers. 

    

�Are there still countries where someone named John X will
�have a son named Pete JOHNson who will have a son named
�X PETERson, etc.?  

    Of  course  in  Iceland  a  woman named Jane X would have a daughter 
    named  Janedottir  Y  and  they  keep  their   names   on   marriage 
    (consequently  the  Icelandic  telephone  directory  is organised on 
    first names, not "family" names)...
    
    

        .48: The name TenEycks (it stands out really well!) does sound
        familiar... I'm not positive, but I'm reasonably sure I saw
        it somewhere in the family tree Dawson (my great uncle) put
        together.  Of course, I could have just seen it written
        places... I went to college in Schenectady, and have several
        relatives (including Dawson) who live there, so I've been
        all around that area.
        
        As for my step-ancestor, certainly he had an effect on my
        family... and at least some effect on me (if nothing else,
        I'd have had a different name without him).  But my point
        was that while the ancestor himself may be important, the
        *name* is irrelevant.  Even growing up with that same step
        father, he could just have easily have kept his original
        name... or used Butenhof but put his legal name on *his*
        son's birth certificate... in either case, my name would
        be different now: my ancestry would be the same.
        
        Tracing the Butenhof family back to Germany would be pretty
        useless, as I know nobody related to them, and my only
        connection with the name is that it's mine---through the whim of
        my (great?)grandfather. Tracing Van Eps back to Holland means a
        lot more to me... even though my connection with that *name* is
        two generations away. 

        To wind this more back towards the real topic (nope, I
        haven't---quite--- forgotten!): I am not "family" to the
        Butenhofs of Germany simply because I share a name with them...
        nor am I unrelated to the Van Eps simply because I do not.
        
        It simply makes no sense to me how anyone could suggest that my
        wife and I would be "more of a family" if we shared the same
        name... or how anyone could think us less of a family simply
        because we do not. 

        	/dave

    I came across an appropriate quote today:
    
    "It is all very well to say that, in a marriage, two become one,
    but the main question is, which one?" (Anon.).

    
    	This particular notes file has been of great interest to me,
    as I will be getting married this year and the choice of our married
    name has been debated at some length.  While I did not read of anything
    particular to our situation, I would like to make a few observations
    and then offer our imperfect solution:
    
    	1) Of all the arguments against the woman taking the husband's
    surname upon marriage (encountered mainly in WOMANNOTES), the
    primary one was "...just because it is traditional doesn't make
    it correct; why please society over ourselves?"  I wish to ask the
    counter question of "what is a surname if not a societal label?"
    Speaking for myself, I am referred to by my surname only in a societal
    context.  My family does not address me by my surname, nor does
    my fiancee, nor do my close friends.  Thus, if the surname is primarily
    used in the larger societal context, is it so wrong to adopt the
    conventions that are most accepted by society?
    
    	2) To be totally non-sexist, the only acceptable solution is
    for both partners to retain their birth names upon marriage, or
    to adopt a totally new family name.  For the husband to adopt the
    wife's surname is merely propagating the sexism of the conventional 
    method.  Hyphenating the two names again creates problems (who's
    name first? why?), not to mention the problem of naming children.
    But to retain birth names necessitates the absence of a common family
    name, which to many people (my fiancee and myself included) is very
    important.  And finally, selecting a new family name is generally
    met with great resistance from relatives, and depending on the personal
    relationships enjoyed with them, this alternative may create far more 
    problems than it solves.   
    
    	3) Lastly, names are very personal things, and one's attachment
    (or lack thereof) to one's name is a highly subjective matter that
    rarely stands up to logical scrutiny.  Because of this, asking anyone
    to change his or her name must be done in an environment of concern
    and respect for the other.
    
    	Oh, yes, our "imperfect" solution:  As mentioned above, we both 
    felt very strongly about having a single family name.  While her first 
    choice was for us to use a hyphenation of both our names, I felt very 
    uncomfortable with that (again, purely subjective and indefensible,
    but still a very real feeling).  My choice was for her to adopt my 
    surname.  The solution we eventually reached was to both take new
    names; she would adopt my surname as her own, and we would both use
    her birth name as our new middle names.  As you see, it is an
    "imperfect" solution in that she gives up (changes?) more than I,
    yet it works for us in that she respects my feelings while I try
    as best I can to retain her birth name in our married names (her
    original intent).                             
    	
    	Thanks for putting up with such a long note!   -- Tony
    

    
    
    I don't understand the necessity of having a 'common' family
    name.  I feel that my name is uniquely mine.  It has never oc-
    curred to me to change my name.  I do not use my name as a "link"
    to any particular family, but rather as an expression of my in-
    dividuality.  
    
    I have been married twice.  Each time, the question of changing
    my name was only posed by others.   
    
    I have a child.  We did have a problem deciding on a name for
    him.  Finally gave him 4 names (given name, middle name and 2
    'last' names)...he has been told since he was a wee lad he
    could choose for himself what last name to use.
    
    Pet peeves:  those who question the fact that I have not changed
    my name.  those who refer to my use of my name as "keeping" my
    name.  those who refer to my last name as my "maiden" name.  I
    don't care for that term.  
    
    Disclaimer:  this is not to suggest that those who do change
    their names are somehow wrong.  this is simply an expression of
    my personal feelings on the subject.
    
                             Deborah
    

    deborah- do you also object to the fact that your marriage certificate
    says status        male         female
                     bachelor      spinster
    
    what a waste of time.
    what's in a name ?
    no personality by any name would still be worthless.
    who cares, call me sludge, pay me the same I really dgas.

    
    re .55
    
    how about an " $_ "...?

    RE: .56
     This is true.

    I think it would be interesting to get some examples of what actual
    couples who have hyphenated names have done in this circumstance.
    I certainly don't expect there to be a universal rule.  One idea
    I've heard is that boys get the father's last name, girls the mother's.
    
    					Steve

    	From a slightly alternate perspective, in Switzerland things 
    	work a bit differently.  Women who take their husband's name
    	take and hyphenate it BEFORE their own name.  For instance, my
    	boyfriend's family's name is Schertenleib.  When his sister-in-
    	law married his brother, she changed her name to Schertenleib-
    	Hintermueller.  The kids' are named Schertenleib.  (And isn't 
    	that fortunate for the tongue??!!??)
    
    						Carla
    

    re .59 re .56    Yes, his very own terminal. :-)
    
    re .60  Very interesting idea. Any legalities involved?
    
                                                        Russ

    In many states, the mother can give her children any name she wants
    to, regardless of whether it is her name, her husband's name, the
    baby's father's name, or a name she happens to like.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THIS WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO THE KIDS AS WELL
    AS THE FAMILY AS A WHOLE.  JUST THINK HOW MUCH GRIEF THE KIDS AND
    THE HUSBAND WOULD RECIEVE FROM THEIR PEERS.  I WOULDN'T STAND FOR
    IT IN MY HOUSE. I AM FROM THE OLD SCHOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Gee.  My son might disagree.  He lives in 2 households, with a total
    of FOUR last names, and has always been given the choice of which
    surname to use.  Sometimes he uses my last name. Sometimes he uses
    his dad's last name.  Any day now, I expect him to start using his
    stepfather's last name :-)....but there has never been any 'grief'
    or confusion.  And we are most definitely a FAMILY.  A family of
    individuals.
    
    
                      Debra

    re: .0, & .64 
    
    Currently , we only have two last names in my house, and the only
    confused ones are the post office. Friends, businesses, schools,
    church has no problems.
    
    I do know of one case (friends) who the woman kept her maiden name,
    and her name got passed on to her son. Her huband kept his last
    name, presumabley to maintain his identity with his children from
    a previous marriage (I'm not aware of any problems in this family
    as a  result of this arrangement ... but there is lots of love and
    understanding between the family members).
    
    I think we 're getting to the point where names of individuals are
    becoming like "social security numbers" ... they are a unique
    identifier for the person to whom they are attached. Fortunately,
    its not the name that makes the person, but rather the person who
    makes the name.
    
    Ciao '
    
    Bob
    
  

    In reading all of the debate over name changes or not, I wonder
    if anyone has considered the effect on genealogy.  I have over the
    years traced my family lines and in all cases used a patriarch and
    matriarchal family name.  This system of two families joining and
    selecting the husband's name has certainly helped to construct
    genealogies.  I think that abandoning this practice and substituting
    all sorts of choices will certainly complicate future geneologists'
    jobs.
    
    My preference is for keeping patriarchal family names.  BUT, if
    I had a horrendous last name, i.e. difficult to spell or pronounce
    or just downright ugly, I wound not hesitate to change it in the
    blink of an eye.
    
    My 2 cents ( and probably not worth much more).
    
    Paul
        

    	My wife's mother's family named was changed at Ellis Island
    during the great immigration at the turn of the century. When her
    grandfather and grandmother and they were asked their name they
    said McNaughton, and the guard at the gate wrote their name as NORTON.
    They were just plain glad to be here and never changed it.
    
    Ken

    re:  .68
    
    	Funny you should tell that story as my American Govt teacher
    was talking just yesterday in class about how that very thing
    happened to lots of families and that if we traced back our
    ancestors to their native homeland we would find that most of us
    had totally different names there than we got here in America.
    He attributes it to the lack of education of those writing down
    the names.........
    		
    		Myra

    Re: .69
    
    Then again, many immigrants deliberately "Americanized" their names
    when they arrived in this country.  My father's family did this,
    changing Loewenheim (or something like that) to Lionel.  (This is
    why nobody can figure out my ancestry from my last name.)
    
    Then there's people who change their name as they go along - such
    as the now-famous case of Gary Hartpence shortening his last name.
    
    				Steve

    
    I wonder if the Americanizing of foreign names happens more often
    to a certain type of names.  I am an old language\linguistics major
    and have noticed that Teutonic and Slavic names seemed to have had
    this happen to them frequently. Could that be because these languages,
    for the most part, are not spelled as they sound.
    
    My family tree is strictly French and Italian (not an Anglo-saxon
    anywhere).  The spelling of my family names have not changed in over
    300 years.  I account it to the fact that the name is spelled just
    as it sounds and secondly then name is also a word in the language,
    like forest, gardner, etc.
    
    So, the question is:  Do non-phonetic names, mostly Teutonic, suffer
    more variations than phonetic ones?
    
    Rondina is Italian for swallow (bird).
    
    

    RE .69  you don't have to go that far back. When my great-grandfather
    was in the civil war, he was listed as John Sharbono. Our family
    name is Charbonneau. Maybe he couldn't spell it, or the clerk
    who signed him up was marginally literate. 
    
    Dana

    For all of the women that want to keep their last name, because of the
    "end-of the-tree" syndrome (like myself). 
    
    1.	Change your last name to your middle name.
    2.	Don't hypenate your husband's name, (most are very sensitive, such
        my financee).
    3.	Also, have of the children can have your last name, for their
    	middle name.
    
    For example: (My name will be Shirley Gray Webber)
    		My son will have a four generation name.
    		And my second child (hopefully a girl) will be named
    		India Gray Webber.
    
    I think this is a great alternative, do to the fact it is hard for a
    woman to carry her maiden name.  
    
    Shirley

    
    
    Why do think it's "hard" for a woman to continue using her
    name?
    
    I would think changing one's name would add it's own set of
    problems.
    
    Deb
    

    I found it much easier *not* to change my name.  I would have had to
    have changed records in several colleges, doctors' offices, insurance
    policies, social-religious-business organizations, numerous magazines
    and newsletters, legal documents.  The list went on and on.  
    
    Plus, changing my name would have made it impossible for old friends to
    contact me (something that just happened recently).  And if we ever
    divorced, I would either to be stuck with his name or go through the
    mess of changing my name again - and I wouldn't like either one.
    
    Changing names when you get married can be a lovely thing but I don't
    think that it's an easy thing to do - at least it wouldn't have been
    for me.