**UPDATE**
Our full journal article was published in 2017, and is available to download here.
We're finally able to reveal a small selection of the results of our 2014 survey into the surname choices of British people who get married - the full details and qualitative analysis will be published next year in the journal Gender and Language.
[1]
THE NUMBERS
We had 1,000 people respond to our
survey (questions reproduced below): 84% of respondents were women and 74% were heterosexual. As shown below, the majority of our participants were also in heterosexual marriages. (All tables and graphs adapted from a forthcoming paper focused on the quantitative results.
[2])
We were interested in whether there seemed to be a general move, amongst those who had married, towards alternative name choices (such as blending two surnames together, or double-barrelling). The majority of our participants, however, either kept their own name or took that of their partner:
When broken down according to whether respondents were in a same-sex marriage or a heterosexual one (see below), it is clear that the majority of women in heterosexual marriages took their partner’s name, though a large number of these women retained their surname. On the whole, men in heterosexual marriages kept their own name; none took their wife’s surname, though three double-barrelled their name with hers. Women married to men showed a greater variety of surname choices (including double-barrelling) than the men did, whilst the majority of people in same-sex marriages or civil partnerships chose to keep their own surname. However, some of the women in same-sex marriages or civil partnerships did take their partner’s name (compared to none of the men).
On the whole, then, the results of our survey show that those in same-sex relationships are statistically more likely to keep their own name – as are men in heterosexual relationships – and that the most common option for women in heterosexual relationships continues to be to take their partner’s name.
THE COMMENTS
Many of the women in heterosexual relationships in our study did not take their partner’s name. The most frequently cited reasons for this were a desire to show their independence as an individual, and a belief that taking a married name was problematic. For example, one woman said:
“I chose to keep my own surname and my individual identity after marriage. As a modern feminist I believe the social 'norm' of the woman taking her husband’s name is outdated and sexist, as it originally indicated ownership.”
Women in this category often contemplated double-barrelling their surname with that of their husband, but many chose not to because of a concern that it sounded ‘posh’ or simply that it would make their surname overly complex and lengthy. Similarly, many of the women who did take the name of their husband considered double-barrelling but came to the same conclusion. In such cases, many women decided it was simply easier to take on the same name as their husband. Lots of the women cited the difficulties of not having the same name as their husband as the reason why they eventually decided to change their name, as in:
“We had several cheques made out to ‘Mr and Mrs’, which the bank refused to cash until I changed my name.”
Some of our lesbian respondents, interestingly, cited the administrative burden of a name-change as a reason not to do it – though, unlike the gay men who answered this survey, many had considered it:
“On a practical level, changing names, ID docs, bank docs would add another level of administrative faff to life!”
Though many women cited admin as a reason not to change names, the cultural expectation that a woman married to a man would share his name on official documentation was clearly evident. For example, a number of mothers felt that life would be more complicated if they did not share names with their husbands and children – commonly cited reasons for this included claims that it would be difficult when travelling through airports as a family, or if a family member was in hospital. In this sense, many respondents felt somewhat constrained by these norms and chose to take their husband’s name simply to make life easier for themselves and their family.
However, many women in our survey clearly explained that they were very happy to take on their husband’s name. For many women, this was to do with a desire for unity: they wanted to have the same name as their husband (and, for some, their children) because it allowed them to demonstrate to the world that they were now a family. In this sense, a name change for many women can be seen as marking a new chapter in their life, and some saw their decision as central to their identity as a wife (and mother):
“I feel as though the name is key to feeling a part of a new family unit of my own. I intend to have children with my husband and it is important to me that we all have the same name and feel completely a part of one another.”
Many of the female and male respondents to our survey commented on their perceived need for a shared name which showed their united identity and married status, and felt that this actually strengthened their marriage. It was interesting, though, that very few of the men had ever considered that they might change their name. On the other hand, plenty of the men outlined discussions they’d had with their wives whereby they felt strongly that it was her decision – many husbands were concerned about the possible pressure a woman may feel to change her name.
In fact, many of the female respondents did cite pressure to change their name – from family, from society, and sometimes from their religion. In a minority of cases, women stated that when they suggested keeping their own name, their husbands were upset or even ‘horrified’, so they chose to take the new name in order not to ‘rock the boat’. On the whole, though, most men completing the survey stated that it was up to the woman in the relationship whether she wanted to change her name.
For most of our heterosexual respondents who had married, a positive association with the traditions of name change were cited as the reason for the woman taking her husband’s name. Though there were some responses which suggested that it had never occurred to our participants that they would not take their husband’s name, or that they simply didn’t have strong feelings one way or the other, many of our respondents expressed that they were ‘traditional at heart’. For example:
“I am quite traditionalist in some respects and was perfectly happy to change my name to my husband’s without feeling that it affected my own identity/standing in society/strength as a woman”
Responses such as these also showed that many women had considered their own identity as a feminist, or as an independent woman, and had concluded that they could retain this whilst also taking on their husband’s name. For many, taking on a new name was akin to wearing a white wedding dress – a long-standing tradition that they wanted to preserve despite their awareness of the patriarchal connotations it might hold. Overwhelmingly, respondents who identified as non-heterosexual stated that they simply didn’t see these traditions as relevant to them.
Finally, we also asked our respondents whether they thought that same-sex couples had different options to choose from compared to those in opposite-sex relationships. Those identifying as non-heterosexual typically talked of a lack of pressure to conform:
“I think legally the options are the same, but in terms of social acceptability same-sex couples have more options simply because there is no norm or hierarchy to conform to”
Many of our heterosexual respondents, though – particularly the women – gave answers which suggested that they felt same-sex couples had more freedom compared to heterosexuals. Many suggested that same-sex couples could ‘do whatever they like’ because no expectations are expected of – or imposed upon – them:
“I suspect they’re the same options, but they’re not led down a particular route – e.g. there is no ‘default’ imposed on people”
Similarly, the assumption that same-sex couples are less likely to have children led to the assumption that fewer LGB people would be likely to take on a new ‘family’ name, though again this was often tied into a perception of relative freedom:
“It seems like they do not have the same pressure. Maybe because they are less likely to have children?”
These responses demonstrated to us that, although many respondents who did change their name cited tradition and family unity as a positive reason to do so, many also recognised that there was a degree of expectation and cultural normativity attached to this. Indeed, some of the straight women who had earlier stated that they’d have happily taken on the name of their husband commented that they ‘envied the freedom’ of same-sex couples, or that they were ‘jealous’. Of even more interest (and concern), though, were a number of comments suggesting that many same-sex couples don’t change their names due to some fundamental equality existing between them:
“Biologically, gay couples are more equal, so they are starting from a more equal position”
The assumption that same-sex couples have more flexibility because they are less tied down by cultural norms, and the idea that they are somehow more equal, is fascinating: it suggests that LGB people may actually be seen, by some, as better off than heterosexual people in this regard. The finding also suggests that, though tradition is often seen as a positive reason for name-change, many heterosexual people do feel somewhat constrained by expectation. Importantly, as well, it remains the woman rather than the man who may feel obliged to make a decision – to retain one’s ‘maiden’ name or change to something new – when marrying someone of the opposite sex.
-----
In addition to questions determining participants’ demographic and marital status, we asked the following questions as part of our survey:
- When you married or entered into a civil partnership please state what you did with your surname/If you were to marry or enter into a civil partnership please state what you would do with your surname
- What influenced/would influence your decision about what to do with your surname? If you are double-barrelled, whose name went/would go first?
- [If relevant] What did/would you do with your child/children's surnames?
- [If relevant] What influenced/would influence your decision about what to do with your child/children’s surnames?
- Which title do you use to refer to yourself (e.g. Ms, Mr, Mrs)? Is this the same in every situation?
- Which word/s (e.g. ‘wife’, ‘husband’, ‘partner’, etc.) would/do you use to refer to each other?
- What have most of the married/civil-partnered people that you know done in relation to their surnames? Why do you think this is? Please state if you are referring to straight married couples or same-sex couples (and whether they have had a civil partnership or marriage).
- Has anybody you know done anything you consider to be unusual in relation to their surname? If so, what? Please state if you are referring to straight or same-sex couples, and what their relationship status is.
- Do you think that same-sex couples have different options when it comes to keeping or changing their names if they get married/civil-partnered? Why?
- How important are these issues to you?
-----
[1] Jones, L., Mills, S., Paterson, L.L., Turner, G., Coffey-Glover, L. (forthcoming 2017) Identity and naming practices in British marriage and civil partnerships. Gender and Language. [2] Paterson, Laura L. (in prep.) But what will they call the children?: Factors affecting surname choices in marriage/civil partnerships and parenthood. Intended for Research Journal of Marriage and Family Research.
In brief, what we've discovered is that opponents to same-sex marriage were represented as victims whose moral values, traditions, and civil liberties were being threatened by a ‘politically correct’ minority. This was achieved in various ways, but included the explicit foregrounding of 'ordinary people' as both those not part of the political elite and, more subtly, as those not in same-sex relationships. The notion of victimhood was particularly underlined in discussions of specific types of 'ordinary people'; this included parents, those with religious beliefs, and teachers who would potentially be 'forced' to teach children about (extraordinary) same-sex marriage. 
