Are More Men Taking Their Wives’ Last Names?

Family History
2 July 2015
by Sandie Angulo Chen

For genealogists today, or those just interested in researching their family trees, surnames are a vital link between present and past, a line of breadcrumbs that guides us down the corridors of our family histories.

But surnames can be a source of tension, especially when they involve gender relations. When actress Zoe Saldana revealed in June 2015 that Marco, her Italian artist husband, had taken her last name when they married in 2013 (she reciprocated by taking his), she faced criticism that she had “emasculated” him. Instead, she defended his choice to adopt her last name as a nod to modernity.

“Why is it so surprising, shocking, eventful that a man would take his wife’s surname?” Saldana asked on her Facebook page. “Men, you will not cease to exist by taking your partner’s surname. On the contrary, you will be remembered as a man who stood by change.”

Big Names Taking on New Names

Saldana isn’t alone in having a husband who shares his wife’s name. In 2009, shortly after he married Beyonce, Jay-Z — whose real name is Shawn Carter — took the name Shawn Knowles-Carter, while Beyonce became Beyonce Knowles-Carter. The Knowles family was eager to keep her name alive because she had no brothers to pass on the name.

Rocker Jack White, formerly of the White Stripes, took the surname of his wife and bandmate at the time, Meg White, when they married in 1996 (his original name is John “Jack” Gillis). Though two divorced in 2000, they presented themselves to fans as brother and sister, and Jack still goes by the White surname.

Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles from 2005 to 2013, combined his original last name, Villar, with his wife’s, Raigosa, when they married in 1987. (They divorced in 2007.)

Still, it remains uncommon for men to adopt all or part of their wives’ surnames, a reflection of legal and social codes in place since the Middle Ages in England.

The Long Reach of the Middle Ages

Surnames in England arose shortly after the Norman Conquest as a way for 11th-century Britons, who shared a limited number of first names, to distinguish themselves. Initially, surnames were not passed down over generations but instead described an individual’s characteristics, occupation, or origins, and they sometimes changed over a person’s lifetime. Thus, members of the same family might have different surnames.

By the high Middle Ages, however, this system had been formalized into the system of “coverture,” which merged a woman’s identity into her husband’s. After marriage, a woman lost the right to contract, appear in court, or possess land independently of her husband. And naturally, the woman would adopt the surname of the man who now controlled her public identity.

Although coverture-based laws subsuming a woman’s legal identity into her husband’s were dismantled as we moved into the 20th century, the social conventions associated with them have continued. A 2013 survey of 13,000 brides for the wedding website Topknot.com found that only 20 percent of women didn’t plan on taking their husbands’ surnames.

As for men taking their wives’ names, public acceptance is even less. In a June 2015 poll of 1,000 adults commissioned by the Huffington Post, 40 percent of respondents felt it was “a little odd,” while 17 percent found it “inappropriate.” Only 7 percent of respondents said it was “great” if a man took his wife’s last name upon marrying; 30 percent felt it was “fine.” Attitudes may be softening over time, though. Sixteen percent of 18 to 29 year olds said it was great if a man took his wife’s last name, compared to zero percent of those age 65 and up.

With so little interest in men adopting their wives’ names, it’s hardly a surprise that the law doesn’t make that process very simple.

Getting the Law on Your Side

In 2007, Michael Buday sued California and Los Angeles County, claiming gender discrimination in the ability of newlyweds to adopt their spouses’ last names. A woman there, as in all 50 states, can take her her husband-to-be’s surname simply by writing it down on their marriage license form, for a fee that ranges from $50 to $97. A man who wants to take his fiancee’s surname upon marriage, however, must rely on the general-purpose name-change procedure, which requires a $350 court fee, four weeks of legal announcements in a newspaper, and a judge’s approval.

“The law makes it burdensome, if not close to impossible, to adopt the wife’s name,” said the man’s lawyer, Mark Rosenbaum. “It reflects the archaic notion of a woman’s subordinate place in the partnership.”

Rosenbaum’s client, however, won his lawsuit, and in 2008, California legislators changed the law to allow both married couples and registered domestic partners to choose whichever last name they prefer on their marriage and driving licenses. According to legal scholars and a company that helps newlyweds legally change their names, only nine states, including California, expressly allow men to change their name at marriage through the same process available to women. Only six states permit spouses to merge their surnames into a new name at marriage. Of those six, only three permit wholly new surnames at marriage, and only two permit spouses to change their full names.

“I feel much closer to (Diana’s) father than I do mine,” Mr. Bijon (née Buday) said. “She asked me to take her name and I thought it would be very simple. I never imagined the state would make it so difficult.”

Find out if the men in your family ever adopted their wives’ last names on Ancestry. Begin your 14-day trial here FREE.