RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: LizzieW on Monday 19 February 18 12:53 GMT (UK)
-
I've just read a piece about husbands who take their wives surname on marriage, rather than the other way round, mainly because they prefer their wife's name or they've fallen out with their own family.
In fact my youngest son's sister in law has kept her maiden name and her husband has chosen to take that name. I can see why, he had a common or garden surname, whereas her surname is very unusual (only just over 2000 in the world) and as the family only had 4 daughters they are happy that one of the sons in law took on the name.
This will really confuse people researching their family history in the future.
-
My friend's husband took her surname 20 years ago, which was virtually unheard of at the time.
I married around the same time and kept my maiden surname, having reverted to it by deed poll after a divorce. My son shares my surname but has his father's surname as a middle name.
You wouldn't believe the amount of vitriol we've received - apparently we are both being 'disrespectful' to our husbands, who must be 'utter wimps' - especially as (shock horror) they both do their share of cooking & ironing!
PS My husband is 6ft, and hers is 6ft 5ins
-
My son's sister in law's husband is a big bloke, at least 6ft 4ins and broad with it, whilst his wife is about 5ft 6ins and very slim. He was happy to give up his name for a fairly rare name.
On the other hand I preferred my husband's surname to my maiden name, so was happy to change mine.
-
Some of my husband's ancestors were German who changed or anglicised their names during World War I. One of them took the name of the woman he was living in sin with. As this was her married name he effectively took the name of his mistress' husband which does seem bizarre. They continued using this name even after they eventually married.
-
I once worked with a woman who double-barrelled her maiden name with her husbands'. Not quite the same I know, she and her sister were the last in that surname line and wanted to preserve it
-
When my daughter married a few decades ago her husband took her surname as he preferred our family name to his. He's now been married several times and he and his later wives have used our family name.
I've seen on Hanover/German threads that historically when a daughter inherited the family farm, it was usual for her husband to adopt her surname. This was also the case in the "rich" British branch that carried my maiden surname - in as much as when the main male line died out, a female inherited the estate and it was a condition that when she married her husband had to adopt her surname.
On my OH's main line, I had the dickens of a job finding one birth because (a) the parents stated the child was 2 years older than she really was, and (b) when I did find the birth/baptism record, the vicar had noted "the couple have promised to marry within the year" the child officially had her mother's surname and her father's surname as one of her given names. The two sunames being switched over for the rest of her life.
-
There has been a well established proceedure concerning this for hundreds of years.
This link gives an expanation -
http://www.spearswms.com/names-and-arms-clauses-inheritance-adoption-and-family-disputes/ (http://www.spearswms.com/names-and-arms-clauses-inheritance-adoption-and-family-disputes/)
Regards
Chas
-
My initial comment in my original post, was that this will confuse future family historians. At least when a couple use both their names in a double barrelled name, future ancestors could research both names. I guess if it becomes common for husbands to take their wife's maiden names, the future family historians will just be used to that kind of confusion.
-
In my one-name study, I have a couple of 19th century men who used their wife's surname. One used that name for the registrations of his children, the other used his "traditional" name. In both cases, their death registrations matched their births.
Both marriages were legitimate, with no hint of bigamy.
-
Interesting, I had only previously heard of this historically, primarily in the 19th century, when husbands took the wife's surname in order to secure an inheritance where that was a condition.
-
Surely the birth certificates of any children would have the father's name as Mr Wife's maiden name, formerly previous surname. So as we tend to move backwards shouldn't cause too much confusion for researchers.
-
Surely the birth certificates of any children would have the father's name as Mr Wife's maiden name, formerly previous surname. So as we tend to move backwards shouldn't cause too much confusion for researchers.
Only the WIFE's maiden name would be asked for. It's such an unusual situation that the father's name would be assumed to have always been the name he was using at the time.
I've just located another child where birth registration, baptism and burial are in the father's real surname, but the death registration was in the name he was using at the time - all in 1854. It took a little bit of working out.
-
Surely the birth certificates of any children would have the father's name as Mr Wife's maiden name, formerly previous surname. So as we tend to move backwards shouldn't cause too much confusion for researchers.
Only the WIFE's maiden name would be asked for. It's such an unusual situation that the father's name would be assumed to have always been the name he was using at the time.
I've just located another child where birth registration, baptism and burial are in the father's real surname, but the death registration was in the name he was using at the time - all in 1854. It took a little bit of working out.
A lot of forms these days ask "have you been known by any other surname?" not so difficult to fix
-
This will really confuse people researching their family history in the future.
I suspect future genealogists will have plenty to be confused about, with same-sex marriages, single parents (by choice), surrogate mothers, etc.
At least they would if they still had 19th century values and attitudes, but things will have changed so much by the next century, in ways that we cannot begin to imagine . . . DNA may have replaced genealogy anyway :-\