On 4/27/2021 10:41 AM, Graham wrote:
> As was the custom then, my ex took my name on marriage and, since we were
> both in the same field, it caused some confusion when she published a
> paper. At conferences/conventions, there were instances where other
> delegates took me for the author.
>
Not surprising a squat to **** French sissy like you
being mistaken for a woman.
--
The real Bruce is a whining piece of shit

On 2021-04-27 10:41 a.m., Graham wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:45:12 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>

>> No all engagement rings are paid for solely by one member of the
>> couple. Anecdotal, surely, but among those I know, I can think of half
>> a dozen instances. Times change, but I paid for half of mine way back
>> in 1976. I wasn't too fond of my fiance paying any of it, actually.
>> Other gifts were exchanged between us at times as we were together for
>> a couple of years, but that ring, symbol of what I felt was a shared
>> and equal relationship, was something I wanted to take part in, too. I
>> did not change my last name at the marriage, either.
>>
> As was the custom then, my ex took my name on marriage and, since we were
> both in the same field, it caused some confusion when she published a
> paper. At conferences/conventions, there were instances where other
> delegates took me for the author.
>

My wife was born with a difficult to pronounce Dutch name. Perhaps her
wish to marry my was not my intelligence, wit, charm and many talents
that impressed her. According to several of her friends, she hated her
maiden name and had planned to marry a Smith. To be perfectly honest, I
would have had no problem with her keeping her maiden name.


It was a different matter for a friend of mine. He was a doctor and
early in his career he was seriously involved with a female doctor. His
name was Stitt and hers was Vogel. He was adamant that they adopt each
other's surnames in a hyphenated form and he refused to be Dr. Vogel
-Stitt.

On 2021-04-27 10:42 a.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:21:58 -0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy

>> It's extra useless paperwork to change a driver's permit, health card, an
>> extra form to do on both the federal & provincial taxes. Also accounts at
>> your banks, &c. I'm not sure if it makes paperwork easier for your
>> heirs / executors.
>
> The paperwork involved was certainly burdensome and one of two main
> reasons I did not change my name. The other was that I had an
> established name/reputation in my career and I saw no reason to change
> my "branding," as it were.


If it is troublesome and time consuming to change to the husbands' name
it's a good thing my SiL only did it on the first one. Like my wife,
she was happy to dump the Dutch name. She got into the acting business
after her divorce and kept her married named for the sake of her career.
She did not change to the first common law's the second, third or
fourth marriages.

Boron Elgar wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:21:58 -0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:45:12 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
> >
> >> I did not change my last name at the marriage, either.
> >
> > It's just extra useless paperwork.
> >
> > It's extra useless paperwork to change a driver's permit, health
> > card, an extra form to do on both the federal & provincial taxes.
> > Also accounts at your banks, &c. I'm not sure if it makes paperwork
> > easier for your heirs / executors.
>
> The paperwork involved was certainly burdensome and one of two main
> reasons I did not change my name. The other was that I had an
> established name/reputation in my career and I saw no reason to change
> my "branding," as it were.
>
> Not changing the name was more rare back then. I did consult a lawyer
> about it and was advised to change it nowhere or everywhere. My then
> MIL asked me why I had gotten married if I didn't want to change my
> name. I found the question rather perplexing on several levels. She
> did introduce me to rutabagas, though, so I forgave her.
>
> I had no problem with a different name until the kids came along. The
> schools had a real hard time dealing with parents having different
> last names. I suspect it is less problematic now. I have no idea how
> they handled instances of divorce and re-marriage with name changes
> among parents.

I changed names, partly for Don's family (they would not have
understood) but also for Military. Military now doesn't expect that
but back then, it made a lot of stuff easier.

On 4/27/2021 10:21 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:45:12 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> I did not change my last name at the marriage, either.
>
> It's just extra useless paperwork.
>
> It's extra useless paperwork to change a driver's permit, health card, an
> extra form to do on both the federal & provincial taxes. Also accounts at
> your banks, &c. I'm not sure if it makes paperwork easier for your
> heirs / executors.
>

It tradition because the woman loves the man and wants to share his name.
Depending on religion and country of residence you would also become his
property.

Found this:
the practice of a woman taking her husband's last name is a vestige of a
law that dates back to the 11th century. Sometime after the Norman
Conquest, the Normans introduced the idea of coverture to the English,
and the seeds of a long-standing tradition were planted.

Equality, Property, and Marriage. Most American treated married women
according to the concept of coverture, a concept inherited from English
common law. Under the doctrine of coverture, a woman was legally
considered the chattel of her husband, his possession.

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:42:20 AM UTC-5, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> I had an
> established name/reputation in my career and I saw no reason to change
> my "branding," as it were.
>
> My then
> MIL asked me why I had gotten married if I didn't want to change my
> name. I found the question rather perplexing on several levels.
>
That's sounds like your mother-in-law thought the only reason to get
married was to obtain a new name.

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 1:15:05 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> It tradition because the woman loves the man and wants to share his name.
> Depending on religion and country of residence you would also become his
> property.
>
> Found this:
> the practice of a woman taking her husband's last name is a vestige of a
> law that dates back to the 11th century. Sometime after the Norman
> Conquest, the Normans introduced the idea of coverture to the English,
> and the seeds of a long-standing tradition were planted.
>
> Equality, Property, and Marriage. Most American treated married women
> according to the concept of coverture, a concept inherited from English
> common law. Under the doctrine of coverture, a woman was legally
> considered the chattel of her husband, his possession.
>
Many men today, and I mean men under the age of 40 as well as businesses
and some countries still believe a woman is a man's property.

Graham wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:45:12 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> > No all engagement rings are paid for solely by one member of the
> > couple. Anecdotal, surely, but among those I know, I can think of
> > half a dozen instances. Times change, but I paid for half of mine
> > way back in 1976. I wasn't too fond of my fiance paying any of it,
> > actually. Other gifts were exchanged between us at times as we
> > were together for a couple of years, but that ring, symbol of what
> > I felt was a shared and equal relationship, was something I wanted
> > to take part in, too. I did not change my last name at the
> > marriage, either.
> >
> As was the custom then, my ex took my name on marriage and, since we
> were both in the same field, it caused some confusion when she
> published a paper. At conferences/conventions, there were instances
> where other delegates took me for the author.

Is your ex also called Graham?

--
The real Dr. Bruce posts with uni-berlin.de - individual.net

Dave Smith wrote:

> On 2021-04-27 10:41 a.m., Graham wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:45:12 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
> >
>
> > > No all engagement rings are paid for solely by one member of the
> > > couple. Anecdotal, surely, but among those I know, I can think of
> > > half a dozen instances. Times change, but I paid for half of
> > > mine way back in 1976. I wasn't too fond of my fiance paying any
> > > of it, actually. Other gifts were exchanged between us at times
> > > as we were together for a couple of years, but that ring, symbol
> > > of what I felt was a shared and equal relationship, was something
> > > I wanted to take part in, too. I did not change my last name at
> > > the marriage, either.
> > >
> > As was the custom then, my ex took my name on marriage and, since
> > we were both in the same field, it caused some confusion when she
> > published a paper. At conferences/conventions, there were instances
> > where other delegates took me for the author.
> >
>
> My wife was born with a difficult to pronounce Dutch name.

One person's difficult is another person's easy.

--
The real Dr. Bruce posts with uni-berlin.de - individual.net

On 2021-04-27 2:34 p.m., wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:42:20 AM UTC-5, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>> I had an
>> established name/reputation in my career and I saw no reason to change
>> my "branding," as it were.
>>
>> My then
>> MIL asked me why I had gotten married if I didn't want to change my
>> name. I found the question rather perplexing on several levels.
>>
> That's sounds like your mother-in-law thought the only reason to get
> married was to obtain a new name.
>

It doesn't sound like that to me. The MiL is of an earlier generation,
one in which women were expected to submit to their husbands and taking
the husband's name was part of that. I expect that my son's fiancee
will keep her maiden name, the one that is on her multiple degrees and
attached to the dozens of research papers she has had published. .

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2021-04-27 2:34 p.m., wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:42:20 AM UTC-5, Boron Elgar wrote:
> >>
> >> I had an
> >> established name/reputation in my career and I saw no reason to change
> >> my "branding," as it were.
> >>
> >> My then
> >> MIL asked me why I had gotten married if I didn't want to change my
> >> name. I found the question rather perplexing on several levels.
> >>
> > That's sounds like your mother-in-law thought the only reason to get
> > married was to obtain a new name.
> >
> It doesn't sound like that to me. The MiL is of an earlier generation,
> one in which women were expected to submit to their husbands and taking
> the husband's name was part of that. I expect that my son's fiancee
> will keep her maiden name, the one that is on her multiple degrees and
> attached to the dozens of research papers she has had published.
>
That is true about taking the husband's name and submitting, and he's the
lord and master and fount of all wisdom, but it still smacks of getting
married to just get a new name.

On 27 Apr 2021 19:09:06 GMT, "Dr. Bruce" >
wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> On 2021-04-27 10:41 a.m., Graham wrote:
>> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:45:12 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > > No all engagement rings are paid for solely by one member of the
>> > > couple. Anecdotal, surely, but among those I know, I can think of
>> > > half a dozen instances. Times change, but I paid for half of
>> > > mine way back in 1976. I wasn't too fond of my fiance paying any
>> > > of it, actually. Other gifts were exchanged between us at times
>> > > as we were together for a couple of years, but that ring, symbol
>> > > of what I felt was a shared and equal relationship, was something
>> > > I wanted to take part in, too. I did not change my last name at
>> > > the marriage, either.
>> > >
>> > As was the custom then, my ex took my name on marriage and, since
>> > we were both in the same field, it caused some confusion when she
>> > published a paper. At conferences/conventions, there were instances
>> > where other delegates took me for the author.
>> >
>>
>> My wife was born with a difficult to pronounce Dutch name.
>
>One person's difficult is another person's easy.

Your point is? Oh, of course, no point. Just another opportunity to
denigrate somebody in your usual passive-aggressive fashion. You
trolling piece of shit.

Michele Maurer wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2021 19:09:06 GMT, "Dr. Bruce" >
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-04-27 10:41 a.m., Graham wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:45:12 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> No all engagement rings are paid for solely by one member of the
>>>>> couple. Anecdotal, surely, but among those I know, I can think of
>>>>> half a dozen instances. Times change, but I paid for half of
>>>>> mine way back in 1976. I wasn't too fond of my fiance paying any
>>>>> of it, actually. Other gifts were exchanged between us at times
>>>>> as we were together for a couple of years, but that ring, symbol
>>>>> of what I felt was a shared and equal relationship, was something
>>>>> I wanted to take part in, too. I did not change my last name at
>>>>> the marriage, either.
>>>>>
>>>> As was the custom then, my ex took my name on marriage and, since
>>>> we were both in the same field, it caused some confusion when she
>>>> published a paper. At conferences/conventions, there were instances
>>>> where other delegates took me for the author.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My wife was born with a difficult to pronounce Dutch name.
>>
>> One person's difficult is another person's easy.
>
> Your point is? Oh, of course, no point. Just another opportunity to
> denigrate somebody in your usual passive-aggressive fashion. You
> trolling piece of shit.
>

HUSH your mouth. Yoose are speaking to a dutch master!

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 5:27:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-04-27 2:34 p.m., wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:42:20 AM UTC-5, Boron Elgar wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I had an
> > >> established name/reputation in my career and I saw no reason to change
> > >> my "branding," as it were.
> > >>
> > >> My then
> > >> MIL asked me why I had gotten married if I didn't want to change my
> > >> name. I found the question rather perplexing on several levels.
> > >>
> > > That's sounds like your mother-in-law thought the only reason to get
> > > married was to obtain a new name.
> > >
> > It doesn't sound like that to me. The MiL is of an earlier generation,
> > one in which women were expected to submit to their husbands and taking
> > the husband's name was part of that. I expect that my son's fiancee
> > will keep her maiden name, the one that is on her multiple degrees and
> > attached to the dozens of research papers she has had published.
> >
> That is true about taking the husband's name and submitting, and he's the
> lord and master and fount of all wisdom, but it still smacks of getting
> married to just get a new name.

When I married the first time, I didn't change my name. I preferred my
name to his. And it was a point of "feminism". When I married the
second time, I changed my name; I preferred his name to mine.

I took a fair amount of crap for not changing my name, way back in
1979.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:47:23 -0700, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> [...] changed my name.

When once some friends of my parents married, the man too his wife's.

His last name was Outhouse, or something that sounded like that.

On 2021-04-28 7:49 a.m., Mike Duffy wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:47:23 -0700, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
>> [...] changed my name.
>
> When once some friends of my parents married, the man too his wife's.
>
> His last name was Outhouse, or something that sounded like that.
>

I only know of one case where the guy took his wife's name. He was
assistant priest or something at my wife's church. The wife was a
priest. She left him for a woman.