h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

All my life I have been against marriage because of the ritual and the history.

For instance the original job of the best man was to hold down the bride during the losing of her virginity. Women wear rings, change their surname from father to husband, which is a hangover from when women really were considered the property of the man. Women also have Mrs, which along with the ring lables her as married or not, making life easy for men, who have no such labels.

However I now find myself recently married, on all my business/financial stuff I will be a Ms, continuing what I have been for some time. However I can appreciate in some circumstances being a Mrs, such as in hospital, where they very quickly label you and who is allowed to see you.

What do other people think?

I'm quite happy to be a Mrs. But Mrs has to be followed by my name or initial - the old style 'Mrs John Smith' is an appalling antiquity.

I think Ms still has a connotation of a single woman or feminist trying to make a statement. If you wish to retain your maiden name - doesn't that sound quaint - let's say unmarried name - in the work sphere, that makes sense. That's how people know you & it's much easier.
In some maternity units they used to call everyone Mrs, regardless - presumably to avoid any stigma attached to unmarried mothers. The issue of visitors in hospitals matters in critical situations where a partner may be denied access yet a blood relative or spouse would be admitted.
Sadly we have not yet got legislation which would permit a nominated partner (same or different sex) to have the same rights as a married one.

I'll be getting married soon and my fiance has said that she will be known as Mrs...

She's even decided to do the "obey" bit as well. It didn't worry me at all whether she did or didn't and I left it down to her.

The marriage ceremony has never worried us as it won't change anything between us.

Except for your tax assessments - it's much cheaper to live together if you're married.

B

I don't know where you get your ideas from. The origin of the 'best man' goes back to Anglo-Saxon times, or thereabouts. If there weren't enough women in a man's village he would have to 'steal' a woman from a neighbouring village. The purpose of the 'best man' (and the ushers, for that matter) was to protect the groom so that the wedding could go ahead if the woman's relatives turned up and tried to take her back. He was *not* there to hold her down while her husband had his way with her.

The name change thing, AFAIK, was because the woman moved from one house / family to another. It is *not* true that women were considered a man's property, at least not all through history. For a long time women had rights of their own regarding owning property and/or running a business. These rights were eroded over time, until they were almost non-existent for married women in Georgian / Victorian Britain, but they did exist - right through the time when women were changing their names on marriage.

As for wearing a ring, many married men do that now. In fact, I know women who will look at a man's left hand when they meet him for the first time, to see if he's married.

Miss and Mrs both have the same origin - Mistress. Both words date back to the 17th century, so I suppose the perceived need to differentiate between married and unmarried women dates back to then. I have no problem being Mrs, in fact I prefer it. What I *do* object to is receiving letters addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. R. Heath", or worse, "Mrs. R. Heath". It feels like the sender has assumed that my identity has been merged with my husband's, which it most definitely has not.

The use of Ms dates back to the 1950s in America, where some business organisation perceived the need to be able to address letters to women without mentioning their marital status. They hoped that, in time, everybody would be using it for all women, but acknowledged that a woman's preference should be respected. A lot of companies don't seem to be prepared to do this, which *does* annoy me. I'm happily married and proud of it.

Whatever you chose, be consistent. I had a colleague who used her maiden name at work and her married name for other things. It was very confusing to answer the phone and hear the caller asking for 'Mrs Brass', when I only knew her as Paula Holden. Knowing she was married, and not having been told otherwise, I assumed that Holden was her married name.

Being married hasn't changed us, we've been together 7 years now. Its just I don't agree with a lot of the structure of marriage, but it is worth trying to beat it?

I had already changed my surname to his by deed poll, I changed my entire name then. Their were reasons why I did not want to keep my family name, I didn't want to take Moonglums but I couldn't think of a surname I liked, so took his due to a lack of imagination!

If someone called me Mrs Moonglum, I would have to complain, I would say I think you will find that my name is Kaz!

In my school studies on the middle ages, when a lot of the brides were very young, we were taught that one job of the best man was to hold them down.

"I know women who will look at a man's left hand when they meet him for the first time, to see if he's married."

I thought all women did that as a matter of course, anyway.

A true and not entirely irrelevant story; my uncle uses this to demonstrate a few fundamental differences between the sexes:

He was attending a management seminar some years back and noticed that the speaker was missing the little finger of his left hand. During the first break, he asked the lady sat next to him if she'd noticed anything odd about the lecturer's hand.

"Yes," she replied. "He said he was married but wasn't wearing a ring"

B

Kaz, I don't know where your teacher studied, but it obviously wasn't the same place as mine did. Or in the same place as the authors of the various history books I've read. I've not read of marriages to 'very young' girls taking place amongst any but the nobility. Working men needed a wife who was a 'helpmeet', and who could bear children as soon as possible. A 'very young' bride wouldn't do.

Amongst the nobility, if a bride was 'very young', i.e. pre-pubescent, the marriage wasn't always binding - more of a betrothal, with the 'real' marriage taking place at 14 or 15. This was the youngest at which 'children' could get married. 'Marriages' to young girls (older than 10 but younger than 14ish) were never consummated because of the damage it could do. Nobody wanted to marry a girl and then put her in a state where she couldn't have children. If the girl was of a 'beddable' age, but still young, it is unlikely that a second man would be needed to hold her down while she was 'deflowered' by her husband. All in all, your best man theory sounds more than a little unlikely to me.

In all my years studying medieval hsitory (to postgrad level) I never came across that. I did however, read a fascinating book exploring a lot of the more prurient stories to do with the middle ages (droit de seigneur etc) and either debunmking them completely or showing that they were by no means the norm (say, the equivalent of Mormon polygamy in this day and age) but were focussed upon by the Vistorians, gawd bless em...

I'm a Mrs, and I lik it, now the weirdnss has worn off (ten years next month!) But I call myself Firstname Lastname a lot of the time, with no title. However, I find that just Mrs Lastname can just give things a bit of gravitas, and get the name thing done quickly, so you can carry on with whatever your business is.

My name is my tool, for me to use as I wish. I hope that people will judge me on better criteria. I wear my name and title like I wear my rings, because they were a gift from my husband, and as a result I'm proud of them!

In postnatal last year, Everyone was first name, and I was happy with that...

My maiden name sounds and looks soooo weird now....

That best man thing does sound very unlikely to me as well. I have also been told it refers to him being the best man, that is best warrior, of the group. And he was there for protection, in case somebody wanted to steal the bride back. I don't think it sounds likely he was there to hold the bride down. The young girls were usually only promised away, untill they were in puberty, where the real marriage could then take place. I think. Besides, why have him in the church if he was only needed on the wedding night.

The rings thing I believe goes back to even Egyptian times. And I imagine the reason the man gives the woman a ring, is to prove he has money. A woman wouldn't marry a guy who couldn't take care of her. So he shows that he can afford to buy a diamond ring, and that shows he has money. And women can show other women what a good catch they have, and therefore their importance in the social hierachy, by the worth of their wedding ring. The same with jewelry. I think in most societys the woman walks around wearing lots of valuable things, in some cases the entire fortune of the family.

And as for women as property, I think it's wrong to say it has been like that everywhere all through history. There has been exceptions certainly. As for the surname, family lines was once very important after all. And since it was patriarchal, the woman joined the man's bloodline and took his family name. That is what made her part of that family, rather than an outsider.

Post 4: How, exactly, is it cheaper to be married? There are no tax benefits - I've checked... (and both my parents work in tax...)

Cloviscat: It must be weird, to be at the Cloviskitten's Beck and call all the time...

H.

Yes, what are the tax breaks?

*wonders if she can appeal to the boyf's inner yorkshireman in order to get rings on fingers*

Kaz, did you think of yourself as a Miss or a Ms before you got hitched? Or have you always been sort of titleless?

I always introduce myself as Kelli surname, with no salutaion. If required I say I am a 'Miss' because I am not married. If he ever does pull his finger out and propose I'll be Kelli Hissurname and will supply the Mrs only if asked, as I do now.

I don't believe anyone in modern western society sees a wife as the property of her husband, and I don't really care that by using the salutation 'Mrs' people know I am hitched, but 'Mr' doesn't give away my husbands marital status. Why should it make any difference? If he is of a mind to cheat without revealing he is married then he will, if I was then I would - rings can be taken off and titles discarded with ease.

If you don't like Mrs then don't use it, but I don't think it is worth taking an unnecessarily feminist stand on the issue. Do what makes you comfortable...

Hi Kelli, I would prefer not to use the title at all!

Before this marriage I was a Ms because I was married but not legally (pagan marriage). I certainly wasn't single. Even recently I had a form which asked me to state whether I was single, married, divorced, separated or widowed. No space for co-habiting! When you have lived with someone for 7 years you certainly don't think of yourself as single and legally I wasn't married!

If you were Ms before then why change to Mrs? Like I said - do whatever makes you feel comfortable, society can bog off

In the scenario you (i think it was you) mentioned, about being in hospital, I really doubt that the medics are going to ask for a marriage certificate as proof if Moonglum said he was your husband, they have no real reason to suspect he would lie. Actually i've often wondered why people don't lie more often about their status when visiting a loved one they are not directly related to.

My wife has always been known by Ms with her unmarried name. She didn't see any reason to change, and I agree with her.

I had always thought you were a Miss, until you were a Mrs, and then if you got divorced you were a Ms.

I quite like being a Miss, when I do get married (after finding some poor sap who'll take me on) I'll be quite happy to be a Mrs, though I'm not sure I want to lose my surname, as my brother and I are last in the line. Perhaps we'll go double barrelled! (In which case I'd better not marry anybody who's already double barrelled!)

Queegle

I always thought I might keep my maiden name and add his on the end, but not double barrelled. So I'd be Mrs Kelli Mysurname Hissurname. I don't have a middle name so I shouldn't end up with too many initials...

>Yes, what are the tax breaks?<

None any more, the married man's tax allowance has been abolished. Hmph.

Liam.

need to think of a differet tactic then...