Aspies For Freedom

I took my husband's name.  I thought about keeping my own, as I was the "last" of my father's name.  But in the end, I went the more traditional way.  I did it partly for any children we might have (and did have) I grew up never having the same name as anyone else in the house and it was confusing as all heck.

It did used to make me laugh as I was growing up, my Mom had one name, I had another, and whatever husband she was married to at the time had another one.  It was never simple...LOL!

I'd be interested to hear more about the history of it, Louise18.  In Scotland it's a fairly recent convention, as far as I know.

I'm sorry, but there seems to be some misunderstanding here, jiggerqua.  I am genuinely interested in what Louise18 said here.  I have looked into this matter before, and wondered what historical reasons there were for the convention.

It was not an attempt to fuel a feud.

Thanks.

I've never heard of that reasoning before, and wonder how universally relevant it is, within the church and without it.

There is nothing in the paperwork, certainly for a civil ceremony, in Scotland which indicates that the wife changes her name and I don't know if there would be anything in church documents, either.

Do you have a particular view on the matter?  I take it that the guy you're debating with elsewhere thinks that women must take their husband's name...

Interestingly, some people, on finding that I hadn't changed my name when I got married, asked me if it was difficult or expensive to keep my own name!  Emmm, no and no!

I know things have been a bit twitchy recently, to say the least, but this is directly relevant to this thread and it's an opportunity for the original poster to expand upon the reason for her asking the question in the first place.

If you wish to avoid it, or don't want to contribute further then....that's your choice. I'm interested, and having been married twice, divorced once and likely to be divorced again I feel it's pretty relevant to me!

Actually, my husband wanted to, he wants nothing to do with the family from which he originated.  He has a plan to change his middle name anyway, which is his father's first name.  

We had tentatively chosen "Tenenbaum" from the movie "The Royal Tenenbaums" but my daughter said no, she likes her last name just fine.  Oh well...

I think that you have the choice here (US).  I did not recall having been told one way or the other, but then again, I had just given birth, I was not all that lucid.

There was this great bumpersticker I saw once...

I found Jesus, he was behind the sofa the whole time.  

I was actually just a Matron of Honor, and my husband presided over the wedding, of my best friend.  Her father had passed away so her brother gave her away, but the whole family gave consent.

They really stuck with a lot of the traditional things, but the cool thing was, the wedding was ALL THEIRS.  They chose to make it somewhat traditional.  The best thing is, she still talks about how it could not have been more perfect.  

She also took his name, by the way.  Again, though, she chose it, and was honored to "join his family."

GuessWho, that is cute!

Oh yeah, there is a lot of information on that, wow, I had no idea.  
Did a quick google, and came up with:

http://www.weddingsguide.co.nz/traditions.html

The wedding cake
The wedding cake has a rich symbolic history of its own that is relatively forgotten today. The ancient Greeks threw cakes at the newly married couple, just as we throw confetti today. In Roman times, at the marriages of the upper classes, cakes made of flour, salt and water would firstly be shared by the bride and groom, which was thought to promise the couple a life of plenty, in both children and happiness. The remainder was then broken over the bride's head. The guests, believing they would share in the blessing it symbolised, would rush forward to procure a morsel for themselves. Furthermore, it was only the children born to a marriage sanctified in this way that qualified for the high sacred offices in Roman life, hence, not only did the cake provide the couple with future fertility, but also it promised their yet unconceived children with a propitious future.

A huge basket of dried biscuits was provided at the wedding ceremonies of the early Anglo Saxons where the guests would take one each and the remainder was shared amongst the poor. However, in later times the wedding guests would bring their own cakes, often spiced buns, which were piled into a huge mound. It was deemed to be good fortune if the bride and groom were able to kiss each other over the mountain of cakes, promising them life-long happiness and good fortune. Legend suggests that at about the time of King Charles II (1630-1685) a French chef, observing the tedious way that all the small cakes were piled on top of each other suggested icing the mound into one mass, out of which grew the traditional French celebration cake called the croquembouche. The many tiered, elaborately iced, traditional wedding cakes of today are based on the unusual shape of the spire of St Bride's church in London.

In Victorian times, the tradition of breaking the cake over the bride's head was believed to promote fertility and unmarried girls would pass a piece of the cake through the bride's wedding ring and place it under their pillow believing that they would dream of their future husband. In more recent times the cutting of the cake, once the sole responsibility of the bride, was symbolic of the bride's pending loss of virginity, and even now the wedding cake is often still regarded as a symbol of fertility, and its distribution among the guests is symbolic of the sharing of happiness - sharing is regarded as an important feature of all religions, hence the tradition of sending a piece of cake to those unable to attend the ceremony.

Jiggerqua is making an excellent point on the bias posed by this innocent question, although he makes the point very badly and in an abrasive manner.

Louise18 started the discussion with a severe feminist bias. Marriage and all it entails was projected into a feminist, anti-male framework and as a response from a misogynist male's opinion.
The automatic response is of course - "If you feel this way about men why the hell would you want to marry one?"

Of course she countered the obvious feminist concerns with the stance that it was not her intention.

If I was to say something equally as inflamatory like "You know I saw a woman having a really bad mood swing the other day. She wasn't being rational at all. Many aren't at certain times depending on their menstral cycle. Do you think that women ought to have decision making roles in government?" I can not say then "Oh I was not being a mindless, misogynist creep, my question was completely seperate to some innocent observations."

Both are obviously biased, unhelpful, inflamatory, stupid and insulting.

But then Louise that seems to be part of your charm. You present stupid positions and defend them well. Unfortunately poor, ignorant or hateful ideology presented well, does not make the ideologies insightful, clever or realistic. They are still unpalatable. I think you have a mind that obviously works well enough to present a point of view or perspective adequately. If you could be equally clever enough to change your, all too often stupid ideas of the world and others' place in it, you would gain the respect that you would then deserve.

The "I am an Oxfordian scholar and I am a failure" approach looks suspiciously like Socrates' "I know nothing - but at least I know enough to know that I know nothing" approach to life. Equally as arrogant and offensive in its false humility. It annoys people. It got him drinking hemlock. We are more charitable than the ancient Greeks but your behaviour is no more acceptable today than what it was thousands of years ago in ancient Greece.

Warkminter, this was a friendly, fun thread.  While I appreciate that you dislike Louise, to come into a fun thread that is harmless and interesting and bring it down with comments like I listed above, is just trying to feed arguments and malcontent.  Give it a rest.  Frankly, the site needs less of it.

Whoo hoo!  Sounds like a party to me!