Is it acceptable for the husband to take his wife's name when they marry, instead of the wife taking the husband's name?

It seems that such a thing would clash with the immemorial customs of all cultures that adhere to the natural law.  The woman belongs to the man, thus the seemliness of her taking the name of her husband or at least keeping the name of her father.  Then again, sometimes when common men marry women of noble birth, the children take the title (and thus the family name) of the mother, at least where the law of succession allows it.  (I don't think this should be allowed, though; I believe the title should not be inherited in such a case.)  

But, the man does not belong to the woman; given such unique cases like the one you mentioned, it seems best to adhere to the spirit of the law rather than let the letter kill it.  I think that as a general custom, however, the man taking the name of his wife when they marry is repugnant to the natural order and is inappropriate, a sign of corruption in human association.

I could see this being practical if the husband is an adoptee and thus not attached to his adoptive parents' family or to his biological family.

Why doesn't he just assume a new name of his own choosing ?  Something that marks his history and that will avail to the good repute of his family.  Perhaps he is from a certain city or has a certain profession or well-known quality or feature; perhaps he wants to be placed under the patronage of one of the members of the Church Triumphant or else associate himself and his family's name with some sort of noble cause.  

There are many historical cases of people assuming new names for various reasons, whether chosen or given.  Many old voyageurs and soldiers in Québec, for instance, adopted new names because that is how the community knew them -- the Québecois name "Sanschagrin" (meaning "No Worries") is an example of this practice.  (Note that most of these men were far away from home at a young age, otherwise it seems they would have insisted on being called by their own names; this is not very different than the case you mentioned.)

The family name seems to not be that important in Western (at least in American) culture, because they are so many and not many people keep detailed family records.


How can an adopted child's last name not "reflect" himself? Wouldn't such a person be tremendously ungrateful to his adoptive parents for taking him out of the obscurity of orphanhood or some worse state?

Graham,

As you might now, in the Sinosphere, women do not change their family name upon marriage. Rather, they are referred to in public as "Mrs. [insert Husband's full name]". There could be several reasons to explain this. One is that she belongs to her husband and his parents and therefore has to take his name. The other reason is that if she does not bear a son and is widowed, she does not have to be considered as part of the family anymore. The family is divided between the "inside" family (that being the paternal side) and the "outside" family (the mother's side). Those connotations are interesting, but not necessarily always in line with Catholic teaching.

Husband taking wife's name. That is strange. Does it mean that you are joining her family? She is joing your family. And to a certain extent, you are founding your own family to continue on your family line - not hers.

What if the wife has no siblings or cousins to carry on her family name, but the husband has more than one?

That is unfortunate, but it does not seem to justify the husband taking the wife's name.

An option that is seen among the Orientals is adding the wife's family name to the children's middle name as a sign of affection.

That would be an excellent option for the children, but it still seems out of place for the husband to add his wife's family name to his own, much less change family names.

I suppose to answer that question it would be necessary to know what  country is yours.

Is it acceptable for the husband to take his wife's name when they marry, instead of the wife taking the husband's name?

I could see this being practical if the husband is an adoptee and thus not attached to his adoptive parents' family or to his biological family.

No.

A woman who would want such a thing demonstrates that she has not love for the man.  A husband who would submit to such a thing would not be a good husband.  

A man who was adopted and rejects his adoptive name show no honor to his adoptive parents.

This whole concept is an abomination.

Quote from: PereJoseph

or at least keeping the name of her father.

How do you mean? That's what feminist women usually do nowadays, and besides being amusingly shortsighted, it's a serious insult to the husband.

-Graham

Well, in some places, it was never the custom to take the man's name, such as in mediaeval France in some areas or else China.  There were various reasons for this I suppose, but I don't think that one can assume that feminism is one of them.  I am just trying to be fair and not too focussed on the present.

  Mine is Iran and the wife keeps her family name here.