I am closing the comments on this article for the time being. I do thank you all for your participation in this discussion.
-Ed.

While I agree that tracing one’s family tree is both rewarding and educational, I disagree with the above statement. I would contend that passing on a surname is completely irrelevant.

Consider trying to trace the parents of John Smith. The surname will be virtually useless without a birth certificate. Even in my own family, which has a fairly rare surname, relying on that name alone would be impossible. Although there only seem to be 2 family groups bearing the same surname here in the UK, they are quite unconnected.

Only by having birth certificates with the mother’s and father’s names can tracing be accomplished. Then, it matters not a jot what names either bears – they can even be totally different from their offspring – they can be traced in the usual manner. Though I have not tried this myself, I have asked the question of two people whom I know are tracing their family roots and they confirm that changing or not changing surnames is quite irrelevant; as long as those changes are RECORDED.

You’re probably not the first person to describe me as ‘strange’. I take it as a compliment.

My wife did hyphenate my surname to hers, as you say, her choice. However, I did the same to preserve the symmetry. My choice.

Well, I’m in the UK but you’ve got the gist. His father came over during WW2 and me his wife here. Having an unusual name for this country (I think it’s less so in the USA) he decided taking her surname would make things easier all round. More pragmatism than feminism.

Michael.

While it’s true that Mrs. originated in the old context of “Mrs. John Smith” soon evolving to “Mrs. Lucy Smith” it is now completely acceptable to be “Mrs. Maiden Name.” My sister is a Mrs. who uses her maiden name. I, personally, have a problem with the title Miss and Mrs. so I use “Ms.” because it’s as ambiguous as Mr. I used “Ms. when I was single, and I used it when I got married.

As for your comment about if one is not ready to feel owned, they should not be married, are you married? And if you are, how do YOU like being owned? Or is it just the WOMAN who should accept that feeling of being “owned?”

Michael!

Just because men of a previous generation had a “right” to something archaic doesn’t automatically entitle men of the current generations to have the same right.

I understand that in the late 1800′s it became illegal to beat one’s wife in North American, and let’s not forget the British phrase “rule of thumb.” This originally meant that no man could beat his wife with a switch that was thicker than his thumb.

Your Great-Great-Great-Grandpa may have had the right to beat his wife. Do you want that same right? Are you entitled to that right just because someone in the past had it?

Right on, Cycleboy. By me keeping my name, and him keeping his, no one holds a veto. My husband actually offered to take my name, and I told him:

“Thank you, I’m touched that you would offer, but it would mean more to me if you kept your own name, since I would not change my name for you, or anyone. I am not going to expect someone to do something for me, that I would not do for them.”

He offered, I was flattered, but ultimately, I didn’t want to have the same imbalance.

It’s the “&” between our names that joins us, not the sharing of one name. That “&” is what makes us one unit.

Cycleboy.

Are you saying the father was Polish, but the mother was American? I’m guessing here. Did the family take her name, because they all wanted to have an American name?

I took my mother’s maiden name because I wanted a Danish name. I live in Canada, where my Dad was born, and I speak his native language as my first language. I wanted something that my mother had, so I took her birth name.

Now before someone says “but it’s your grandfather’s name” let me say this.

Because of the nature of last names in general, and their origins, I could have taken “Hansen” a name that was not a name from my family, and it would still have been someone’s father’s last name.

As time goes on and this tradition eventually goes by the wayside (I know it could take a few decades, or even a century), the “father’s name” won’t be such an argument.

Hello, Confused.
I was not gloating, nor was I looking for an ego boost. I was using myself as an example. Believe me, I’m not as well-known as Winfrey, Palin, or Thatcher. I’m sure you knew to whom I was referring, even though I only used their last names.

As for “disappointed” my husband was also disappointed when his exes INSISTED on taking his name. The only reason why they did was because he felt himself in a catch 22. His words:

“They take my name and perpetuate an old tradition, or I tell them not to take my name, thus forcing them to OBEY, and looking like a misogynist, for not allowing them to make their own decision.”

They took his name because it was their choice, not his. He was greatly disappointed. When I came along, he took a change and spoke up, telling me he would not marry me if I took his name. That was not a threat, that was just a fact. I would not marry him if he wanted me to take his name. He said what he said, and I said “good, because if you expected otherwise, I’d be gone!”

People like my husband, and Cycleboy are disappointed when women want to roll over and embrace a tradition in the man’s “honour” that actually insults the man whom they wish to honour, much the same way I am upset when someone holds the door open for me because I’m a woman. If I have my arms full, and you get to the door first, that’s one thing, and in a similar circumstance I’d hold the door for you, but if I’m just walking through a door, empty handed, and unencumbered, leave the door to me.