The history of when, and if, a woman changes her surname is a simply told tale. Although there are several reasons why a woman might change her name, most often when we refer to this scenario, we are speaking of marriage. The timeline goes something like this: Many centuries ago, in England, people were given names like “Mary” or “John” –two of the oldest known names. Eventually these names began to be repeated, and so in order to tell individuals apart, they came up with surnames. Sur meaning above and beyond. Those names were often based on physical features (Small, Brown), personal characteristics (Wise, Swift), geography (West, York) or occupation (Tailor, Barber). It was much later that surnames began to be passed down to descendants, and interestingly, women were just as likely as men to pass on their names to offspring. While records are not as complete as we would like them to be, there is evidence that equality was much more widespread back then than our “tradition” would lead us to believe. Mary Tudor became Queen of England in 1553 and Amye Ball was granted a patent in 1637. There is evidence of women inheriting and owning land as well as her wealth passing to her children on her death.
Somewhere in the 18th Century “coverture” became law in England. Coverture stated that upon marriage, a woman became an extension of her husband. She was merged with her husband into a single unit, with the woman being under the protection and influence of her husband. She was no longer an individual. She couldn’t own property. It was during this period, that women began to take their husband’s name upon marriage. This is the Law that carried over as the United States began to be colonized. This practice, over the years that followed, somehow became “tradition.” Looking back now, many feel that this was actually the beginning of a downward spiral in women’s rights, from which we’ve slowly been trying to climb back up.
Following this relatively recent law, the first known instance of an American woman maintaining her birth name was of Lucy Stone, a female suffrage fighter, who married in 1855, retaining her surname. Lucy was quoted as saying, “My name is my identity and must not be lost.” As a result of this groundbreaking decision, she was denied the right to vote. In the 1920s, the Lucy Stone League was formed to help married women retain their surnames. Change continued to happen slowly. It wasn’t until the 1970s that women were allowed to obtain a license or passport, or register to vote, without using their husband’s surname. It was as late as 1975 that the Tennessee Supreme court struck down a law that said a married woman could only register to vote under her husband’s surname. Hard to believe something so ordinary, that we take for granted, actually was not allowed in the early days of my lifetime.
More recently, women wishing to keep some semblance of their born identity would use their maiden names as their middle names, for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor. The hyphenated combo was also making a small splash, even though hyphenated last names have been around for centuries, with the practice dating back to the 15th century in England. Back then, it was primarily used by the upper class to preserve family names and properties when two influential families joined through marriage.
Since then, the numbers of women in the US maintaining their birth name have been up and down, rising in the 70s to about 17% before declining somewhat in the 80s to around 14%, and rising again to about 26% in 2000. College educated women seem to keep their birth name at larger rates than the general population, as do white women, and women who get married at a later age.
Some reasons women give for wanting to maintain their birth name include:
- No paperwork; no changing names everywhere
- I like my name
- My name matches my ethnicity and my new husband’s did not
- Wanting to maintain independence and a separate identity
- Having made a professional career using maiden name
- Won’t have to change it in case of divorce
Despite all of these legitimate reasons, when I got married in 1989, I stuck with “tradition” and took my new husband’s name. Some factors that affected my decision, and many other women’s decision to take a married name included: Tradition and romance, and the feeling of everyone in the household having the same name, especially in anticipation of children. Some have also stated that they liked their husband’s name better, or didn’t feel a particular identity with their own name.
That last bullet point above came to cause me to question my own name when I got divorced, about 12 years ago. We have 2 kids, who were about 10 and 8 at the time, so keeping the same last name as them seemed to make sense. It had been my name for so long, that seemed the easiest route, and one way to add a little consistency for the lives of my kids, who were obviously going through a difficult time.
Fast forward to today. I’ve been thinking about my identity, and who I am, and how my name fits into that picture. It seems really silly at this point to keep the name of someone who is not really a part of my life anymore. The love is long gone, and even contact is very minimal. The “kids” are 21 and 19, and although they have never known me by any other name, it’s probably safe to say they won’t experience any trauma if I decided to abandon that particular habit.
If I decided to relinquish my married name, the obvious option is to take back my maiden name. However, I feel that this name is just as much “not me” as my married name. My mom and dad have been separated since I was six years old and my father–as well as his side of the family–has not had a big presence in my life.
I’ve considered my mother’s maiden name. She is, after all, the person who raised me, and my two brothers, singlehandedly. I have good relationships with her family, including aunts and uncles and cousins, who all live close by and who factor greatly into my memories and thoughts. One strange piece of that, however, is that it is not legally my mom’s name anymore. She has always kept her married name, my father’s name. It doesn’t rule this out as an option for me, but it makes the idea somewhat less than perfect.
Are there any other options? Can a person change their name to anything of their choosing? Turns out . . . yes. Yes they can. With few exceptions. You can’t name yourself after a celebrity, a trademarked name, or a number. Also, no punctuation marks, or anything offensive or obscene. You also can’t change your name to commit fraud, evade law enforcement, or avoid paying any debts you owe. The options are literally infinite. I could choose something simple to fly under the radar, or something extravagant to really stand out. I’ve never liked writing the “B” that begins my current last name, or the “W” from my maiden name. I like to write the letter F or S. Farnsworth sounds like a family with a long history. Or how about Saltaformaggio, which means “Jump the Cheese.” I do like cheese. However, I’m not Italian.
So now my options appear to be: Keep the married name, which is certainly how I’m most known both personally or professionally; take back my maiden name, which is my father’s name, and offers no real emotional pull for me, take my mother’s maiden name, which does at least offer some family ties, or choose a completely different name altogether, which would bear no ties to anything at all.
While it’s fun to think about these limitless possibilities, a completely new name is not really a viable option for me. A name with no connection at all to me, or my family, seems kind of meaningless. I’m back where I started. Whatever I choose will be permanent, so I won’t make a decision lightly. I have to feel that my choice accurately reflects me and feels like me. Like Mary Stone over 100 years ago, my name is my identity. She didn’t want to lose hers, and I want to find mine. So for now, the search continues.
F Words that are not 4 Letters 