I changed my name when I got married. My surname had been legally changed twice by my mother previously, so I have no real ties to my surname. Identifying as a family unit was important to me, I wanted that represented on paper as much as in physciallity and genetics.

I did think about keeping my maiden name though for the sake of my adopted father. His name died out with me.(He can’t have biological children) I wanted one of my sons to have my maiden name as their middle name but it just didn’t work with their first names.

I was glad to take my husbands name, I just wish I could get rid of my first names. I wish I knew if this was historically acurate or just a piece of whimsy I read where in early Scottish life children took their mothers names as it was much easier to determine parentage through matriarchal lines than it was through patriarchal lines. (Women know they are mothers, men don’t always know they are fathers or rather proving fatherhood was much harder)
That always appealed to my inner feminist.
I quite like the idea put forth by penguin, retaining both the patriarchal and matriarchal lines by giving the girls the mothers name and the boys the fathers name. Of course, my husband would never go for it.

I’ve just thought of a reason why one might want to keep one’s name. When my uncle and aunt married, my uncle’s mother was strongly against the marriage. She remained so until my aunt had two sons (and then she totally relented). My aunt didn’t want to become Mrs X, because Mrs X was the name of the mother in law, and had bad vibes for her. So she kept her maiden name.

On the other hand, my other aunt kept her married name even after she divorced - she said it was just easier. I suspect she couldn’t be bothered going through the rigmarole of changing everything back again.

I certainly wouldn’t criticise anyone for not taking their partner’s name, nor would I criticise them for changing their name. It’s up to the individual. The tradition is a patriarchal one (father’s name swapped for husband’s name, just as father’s ownership is swapped for husband’s ownership). Both my parents walked me down the aisle - none of this father handing over the woman to the husband stuff for me. But for me, the history of it is divorced from my decision. My decision arose because I decided it would be nice to have the same surname as my daughter in a family context. If we hadn’t had children, I’d still have my maiden name.

I don’t deny the obvious problems when it comes to kids. Say the parents keep their own names, and have two kids - do they give one the father’s surname and one the mother’s? It’s a difficult problem.

But that problem is completely distinct from the problem of why the male family name takes precedence over the female one, and I’m yet to hear a strong argument as to why that should be the case if the genders are genuinely equal.

I agree that most women change their names for ‘practical’ reasons often to do with children(although perhaps it becomes practical because of traditional assumptions?) When I get married in February, I won’t be changing my name. I don’t think I would have anyway but one of the reasons I won’t is practical - my partner’s sister has the same first name as me. I would feel I had no independent identity left and it would cause confusion if we had the same first and last names.

Perhaps I’ll feel differently when I have children? Growing up in a blended family (my mum remarried and took my step-father’s name) I can’t say that it caused any problems not having the same last name as my mother.

I like penguinunearthed’s middle name solution (much better than getting into double-barrelled names). I like the idea and symbolism of creating your own family unit with a common surname but I do have a problem with the assumption that in our culture this is carried along a patrilineal line.