It truly is a man’s world, a most unfortunate fact! I, being a man, have occasionally wondered what the world would be like if the roles were reversed. Not in a biological way...like men being the birth-basket for babies, keepers of the cave, and servers of meals, or women being the greedy aggressors out hunting family sustenance, more satisfying mates, and better property. No, I mean in a more genealogically practical way.
As tradition would have it, in marriage the bride becomes heir to the groom’s surname. Her name is changed so she becomes part of his family in name. We’re quite used to it being that way, as unfair and confusing as it seems and can sometimes be. Both families become relative to bride and groom equally as “in-laws”. But the equality stops there. The bride is generally smaller and dependent upon the groom, who is what he is, worthy of her trust or not as they two become one.
He, most likely, is as his father has been...as John’s son, rather than as Martha’s son.
What if those roles were changed for a few dozen generations? I’m thinking of the greater variety of names that would fill the phonebook in an aftermath of such a change. Not at first, of course, because the current tradition has such a deep-rooted influence on surnames, especially as regards sons. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that if the grooms began taking the surnames of their brides, for a change, something strange and wonderful would begin to happen. I’m talking about the tendencies of the brides’s mothers becoming more important in the adaption of family surnames!
Think of it! Wilson, being a contraction of Will’s son, would remain as is, but I picture Victoria’s daughter becoming a new surname: Victoriaughter, and Andria’s daughter becoming a new surname: Andriaughter, Becky’s daughter becoming Beckyaughter, Wilma’s daughter becoming Wilmaughter, and so on. A fascinating happening in a womanly way...the reversal of tradition!
There are other implications as well, since traditionally many family surnames follow the occupations of the male originators, i.e. Cooper (the family name of a barrel maker), Miller (the family name of a flour grinder), Fisher (the family name of a fisherman), Hunt or Hunter (the family name of one who hunts), etc.. Can’t you see, in your mind’s eye, all the new surnames that would begin to show up: Washer (the family name of a lady who washes dishes, clothes), Ironer or Mangler (the family name of a lady who irons clothing), Cleaner (the family name of a lady who cleans), Scrubber and Scrubs (the family name of ladies who scrubs floors), etc.. I could go on into less respectable female occupations for new surnames that might appear, but I believe my
point is clear.
Whether or not anyone approves such a strange and unusual concept, the fact remains that it’s unfair that a sweet new bride be traditionally subject to having her surname changed to that of the groom. Even hyphenating both surnames seems absurd, and somewhat demeaning, to me. Why must there be any name change at all? Let the wedded couple remain, name-wise, as they were, and the marriage ceremony stipulate that Mr. Joe Johnson is now legally married to Mrs. Mary Miller. Let it go at that... with none of that genealogical nightmare of trying to find out who Mary Johnson was before she became Mrs. Johnson. Ah, but that’s traditional compost at it’s best!
