Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think if we looked at more cultures worldwide and through time we would find many examples of family name traditions that don't follow what we now understand to be "normal."
M.
Yeah, in Iceland there are no family names, only patronymics, similar to the Jewish custom.
Last names in general are a pretty recent thing anyway as these things go. To be called 'John's son' is old as the hills, but Johnson is probably only a few hundred years old. The nobility had last names, but most everyday people were known by their trade (Miller, Smith, etc) or their village, or their parents. There are quite a few European countries that only have last names because it was expected of them by the countries around them. Most Greek last names are a good example of this - just about anything ending in 'ou' is the genetive form of a name (so essentially so&so's son) or place, created relatively recently out of a perceived cultural need. This leads to a few fun things particularly amongst Cypriots where you get Adam Adamou being a common name in the family (because you name for the grandfathers) or Ioannis Ioannou (Andrew has a cousin named this, and if we get married tradition states that we have to have a kid named that!)
Until we all moved out of the villages everyone knew who everyone else was, so 'the son of John the Miller' was all you needed to identify someone.
Given all this, you can hardly claim that it's been a common thing amongst all Christians for a long time - it hasn't. It's only the nobility and some merchants that travelled that ever needed to have 'last names'.
On the subject of Jewish last names Monica, I read once (in a scholarly publication) that most Jewish last names are even more recent than the ones that evolved at the end of the Middle Ages (or later) because in much of Europe due to their second class status they weren't allowed to have last names. A lot of the last names we know of now were created very recently when they finally had the freedom, and some of them have interesting origins dating to before they were allowed to have official last names, like Rothschild.
Ask Frederica why she hyphenated her name.
Thanks, Monica. I see the problem. "Always" is broad; I insist on Christian culture, but think it expands to most other cultures in most other places and most other times. I agree that historical EXCEPTIONS can be found that are by no means "wrong".My posts were in response to this assertion:
"Human tradition - and certainly Christian tradition - has always determined that the family, having one flesh, shall have one name"
This ^ is not true. "Human tradition" and "always" make it incorrect. The "tradition of the majority of Christianized cultures" may be a correct assertion.
M.
Готовность к самопожертвованию это не только главное условие преодоления последствий развода. Это и главное условие успешной семейной жизни, и, наверное, одна из главных проблем и ошибок в семейной жизни это неспособность что-то отдать, чем-то пожертвовать. Эта жертвенность пронизывает семейную жизнь во всех ее проявлениях, от самых элементарных, до самых глубоких и возвышенных. Одна прихожанка нашего храма, ныне покойная, дочь царского генерала, прожившая трудную жизнь и имевшая очень счастливую семью, детей и внуков, в разговоре с другой женщиной, гораздо моложе нее, вдруг узнала, что та оставила в браке свою девичью фамилию. Выяснилась и причина такого решения не хотелось менять множество документов в университете, где учились вместе молодожены. Хорошо помню, как, услышав это, пожилая дама заметила в весьма резкой и, надо сказать, обычно не свойственной ей манере: «Мне и в голову такое прийти не могло, я своему мужу не только фамилию, я ему всю жизнь отдала, какие тут могут быть трудности с документами». Конечно, фамилия далеко не самый важный вопрос семейной жизни, гораздо важнее готовность делить вместе абсолютно всё: и самое важное, и второстепенное.
from the experience of arch-priest Nikolai EmelyanovReadiness for self-sacrifice - this is not onlythe main condition of overcoming the consequences of divorce - it is also the main condition of successful family life, and probably one of the major problems and the errors in family life - the incapacity to give something up, to sacrifice something. This spirit of sacrifice pierces family life in all its manifestations, from the elementary, to the deep and elevated. One parishioner of our temple, now deceased, the daughter of a tsarist General, had lived a difficult life and had a very happy family, children and grandchildren, in conversation with a much younger woman, suddenly learned that the latter had kept her maiden name. The reason was the many documents at the university, where the newly-weds studied together, were difficult and undesirable to change. I remember well, as, after hearing this, the elderly lady noted in a very sharp and uncharacteristic manner: It would never come into my head; I have given my husband not only my last name, but my entire life - what here there can be difficulties with documents?. Certainly the last name is far from the most important question of family life, much more important the readiness to divide together absolutely everything: and the most important, and everything else (including last name).
Last names in general are a pretty recent thing anyway as these things go. To be called 'John's son' is old as the hills, but Johnson is probably only a few hundred years old. The nobility had last names, but most everyday people were known by their trade (Miller, Smith, etc) or their village, or their parents. There are quite a few European countries that only have last names because it was expected of them by the countries around them. Most Greek last names are a good example of this - just about anything ending in 'ou' is the genetive form of a name (so essentially so&so's son) or place, created relatively recently out of a perceived cultural need. This leads to a few fun things particularly amongst Cypriots where you get Adam Adamou being a common name in the family (because you name for the grandfathers) or Ioannis Ioannou (Andrew has a cousin named this, and if we get married tradition states that we have to have a kid named that!)
Until we all moved out of the villages everyone knew who everyone else was, so 'the son of John the Miller' was all you needed to identify someone.
Given all this, you can hardly claim that it's been a common thing amongst all Christians for a long time - it hasn't. It's only the nobility and some merchants that travelled that ever needed to have 'last names'.
On the subject of Jewish last names Monica, I read once (in a scholarly publication) that most Jewish last names are even more recent than the ones that evolved at the end of the Middle Ages (or later) because in much of Europe due to their second class status they weren't allowed to have last names. A lot of the last names we know of now were created very recently when they finally had the freedom, and some of them have interesting origins dating to before they were allowed to have official last names, like Rothschild.
Nah. I think that's sheer speculation.An interesting question might be whether the move to standardize last names is "missing" something, and that is why it is now being abandoned by some.
Nah. I think that's sheer speculation.
The important thing is that the family be united, in all aspects treated as one family, not as something potentially divisible.
To bring in the reductio ad absurdum, we simply cannot throw in, add and keep all of the family names of all of our ancestors. (Well, if we were Ents I suppose we could)
Hi, Kyriaki,Yes but my point was, the family didn't have one name. You were simply the son of someone or the daughter of someone or the husband of someone or the wife of someone or the person who did x profession or if you were really unlucky, the person who was remembered for some particular deed they'd done. People simply knew who everyone else was because everyone lived in relatively small communities.
There are a number of reasons why people might or might not keep their maiden name at marriage these days, not all of which are related to feminism. I know people who kept their maiden name for professional reasons - if your name is on the diplomas as one thing, it's a lot easier to keep that name if you're a scientist or a lawyer or a doctor. You want that parchment to be instantly recognisable as referring to you, now. Noone asks a man to change his name at any time, and while it might have been practical to expect all women to change their names when their names would not have been on any documents except the baptismal and marriage registries, let alone legal documents or diplomas, it isn't always so now. And the only reason that could be a 'feminist' thing is if you disapprove of women having professional degrees that they need diplomas in in which case I am well and truly bowing out of this!
I also know people who have their maiden name because of a particularly strong family pride or a historical tradition in their family - in places like the USA or Australia, there's such a recent migrant history that it's perfectly reasonable that people would come from Europe where the culture is somewhat different (and always has been) with last names.
Yes, there is a 'I want to keep my last name because it is my identity' thing in a certain kind of feminist thinking, but I'm pretty sure that it's not the dominant reason behind most women keeping their name or double barreling it. Double barreling names has tended to be an aristocratic thing (nobility again!) and has to do with the noble families in the lineage both being acknowledged. It pre-dates feminism as we know it by quite a while. Given this history, I think it's cumbersome to do it but I can't see a problem with it. At least then you're acknowledging both sides of your family. As Monica said, we're not in an era where the woman leaves her family to join her husband's extended family and therefore gives up her name for his.
I'm hardly the biggest fan of feminism (particularly the more recent waves of it) myself, but your argument here (particularly in appealing to history) isn't strong. All this said I probably will take my husband's name, but I'm not likely to be graduating before I get married so the name on the parchment will matchIf I was an academic with much published by the time I was getting married though, I would think twice about at least double barrelling my name or continuing to publish under my maiden name.
I think I already mostly answered this in my reply to Kyriaki. It cannot be argued that the rule nearly everywhere over the past few hundred years has decidedly been the surname/last name, and that people WITHIN the definite tradition of the last name buck that tradition (and then appeal to the historical exceptions as excuses without dealing with why they actually want to buck the tradition. On documents, that's in the story. If you folks won't read my stories, what's the point? Yes, it is an inconvenience. But philosophically, it is, within a tradition that unites families under one name, eschewing that tradition (and the solid and in our time now essential justification) in the name of personal convenience.I don't think being united is really about all having one name, and it doesn't make it more divisible unless that is your assumption already.
The thing is, your argument from history doesn't really fly - it isn't a matter of exceptional circumstances. There have been so many different practices that one really can't even make a rule. The kinds of fixed last names we have now are actually kind of unusual. My family name is Scottish and would have originally only applied to males - were those families not really unified because the men and women were known by different last names?
I think the reasons many women keep their last names are related to marrying later and having professions. And probably as well the increase in documentation and records.
It's a lovely thing that a woman is proud to take her husband's name and recognise the family that way, but it was a lot easier before women had credentials and positions that would make the change of last name a problem. Besides, it was only a few decades ago where the woman would be referred to as "Mrs John Smith" after her marriage. That's not uniting a couple, that's removing her name from use formally altogether. My grandmother used it for my mother on a letter and horrified her because she might have chosen to be one with her husband but that didn't make her simply the female version of him! But since you're arguing for the pre-feminist tradition, surely it's closer to historical practice to use that?
I think the truly pre-feminist tradition would be Kyriaki, daughter of [your dad's first name].
I read the story Rus posted (and for the record, I read it right after he posted it). I don't take it to be the definitive word on what every Orthodox woman ought to do. Its a very nice story, an anecdote. It's one woman's opinion and expression of what taking her husband's name means to her. Another woman may choose to keep her maiden name and be no less devoted to her marriage and husband.
The important thing - the most important thing - is WHY something is done. I DO argue that, however inconvenient a name change on documents is, it is definitely the lesser evil in our time than the denial that the two have become part of a single union that may not be divided. Aside from the document issue, you don't really have many good reasons to even consider separate names or denying a unified name. Morally, for all of me, it could be the woman's name - but that's not what our tradition decided.But the problem is, stories aside, diplomas do refer to an individual. It's me, Kyrie maidenlastname that earned that diploma as an individual. My husband didn't earn it, and I don't take anything in my name from the fact that he's got his own diplomas. Our culture recognises the achievements of individuals in that way and not of families. I'm an academic, that's what I do and what I plan to do when I finish up my studies (at the urging of my professors). Andrew's a jeweller and has degrees in that and industrial design. His name is on the diplomas that hang in his showroom and tell everyone his credentials so that they know they can trust him to do the work they expect of him. I would never assume that I should use those degrees and he wouldn't use mine. And if I was to publish under my maiden name, and then have to start publishing under a different name, that causes confusion because people don't necessarily connect between the two people that are actually one, and I don't have that piece of paper with my name and last name on it that match the one on my drivers license. Credentials matter, and particularly if that piece of paper is a doctorate (which I hope to do one day) I want the name on that piece of paper to match the one I use when I write and am referred to as a scholar.
It's a lovely thing that a woman is proud to take her husband's name and recognise the family that way, but it was a lot easier before women had credentials and positions that would make the change of last name a problem. Besides, it was only a few decades ago where the woman would be referred to as "Mrs John Smith" after her marriage. That's not uniting a couple, that's removing her name from use formally altogether. My grandmother used it for my mother on a letter and horrified her because she might have chosen to be one with her husband but that didn't make her simply the female version of him! But since you're arguing for the pre-feminist tradition, surely it's closer to historical practice to use that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?