On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:19:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>https://seattlebridemag.com/expert-w...-married-names
>Still, the matter of a wife taking a husband’s surname didn’t surface in
>English common law until the ninth century, when lawmakers began to
>consider the legalities surrounding personhood, families, and marriage.
>Thusly (as they would say), the doctrine of coverture emerged – and
>women were thereafter considered “one” with their husbands and therefore
>required to assume the husband’s surname as their own.

Isn't that a good thing, though? You don't want them wandering off on
their own. God knows what would happen.

>Under the concept of coverture, which literally means “covered by,”
>women had no independent legal identity apart from their spouse.
>Actually, this “coverage” began upon the birth of a female baby – who
>was given her father’s surname – and could only change upon the marriage
>of that female, at which point her name was automatically changed to
>that of her new husband.

Well, someone has to be responsible for them.