What’s in a name? Identity vs. Marital Tradition

garden-rose-red-pink-56866Four days ago, I became engaged to The Boy. There were fireworks (literal fireworks, because it was New Years Eve, at midnight) and glasses of champagne leftover cider from Christmas because that was all we had in the house. It was a great time.

Then the wedding planning started, bringing with it a lot of questions and – who are we kidding here? – judgements from relatives.

The Boy and I aren’t your most traditional couple by nature. Oh sure, he wants a church wedding and I want a pretty white dress. I want my father to walk me down the aisle and he wants a stag night to remember (or forget, depending on how much he has to drink).

scroll3Where we differ from blind tradition is deciding which surname to take after we marry. He is a Friett (Either Old English from ‘Freo’, meaning ‘Not a serf’ or Flemish, meaning ‘Fat Chip’, which I personally prefer and find hilarious). I am, obviously, a Goodacre (Anglo-Saxon English, meaning ‘lives by a good piece of farming land’). We both love our surnames; we’ve had them all our lives. We don’t want to double-barrel to Goodacre-Friett or Friett-Goodacre because not only is that ridiculously long, but one or the other of the names will inevitably drop off at some point because people won’t bother to write or say the whole thing.

scroll3 (1)I don’t want to take ‘Friett’ as a surname, as I feel it sounds ‘wrong’. Perhaps it’s to do with the amount of syllables. Or, perhaps it’s to do with the fact women traditionally take the man’s surname to signify a possession change from the father of the bride to the husband. I consider that horrendously outdated and a bit insulting. I know that’s not how it’s seen these days, but regardless, to me, I feel that by taking ‘Friett’ as a surname, I’m removing myself from the Goodacre clan completely. I don’t want to do that. I wouldn’t feel like ‘me’.

The Boy doesn’t want to be a ‘Goodacre’ either, for similar reasons. OK, sure, not the patriarchy part, but he doesn’t see why his identity as a Friett should disappear and Goodacre remain.

My other option is to marry The Boy and keep my maiden name. Yet, when the time comes to have children, what surname will they have? Mine, or the Boy’s? Perhaps, traditionally, they will take their father’s name… but then I have a different surname to my children, and I don’t want that. Likewise, the Boy doesn’t want the children to be Goodacres and him to remain a Friett.

1_land-for-freeThe solution we found, originally as a joke, was merging our surnames. In 2012, 1,000 couples in the UK alone decided to blend their names together. It was, we discovered, a growing trend in our generation. So, we had a few laughable tries: Goodett, Friedacett, Goott, etc. Then we both said “Frieacre” (pronounced Free-acre), and it sounded oddly right. Almost, like an actual surname, like the existing Freeman, Freeborn or Freeland. Freeland, incidentally, is what the combination ‘Frieacre’ would mean: Old English: status name for someone who lived on a piece of land held without obligations of rent or service, from Old English freo ‘free’ + land ‘land’.

We loved this solution! We had found a name that honoured both our family connections and represented starting a new life, and a new family together as equals.

wedding-02Some members of our family did not like the idea. In fact, some hated it. The idea was called ‘stupid’ and – oddly – ‘insulting’. The claim was made that by combining our names, we were disrespecting and erasing both our families, which of course, was the exact opposite of our intention. But mostly, it was considered untraditional, which we both came to believe was the sticking point of the argument, no matter how logically we presented our case.

So, 18 months from now, we have a choice to make. Do we go ahead with what we wanted to do as a couple, and risk putting relatives’ noses out of joint, or even creating a rift in the family? Or, do we – for the sake of family peace – give up our idea and go with a more traditional solution? And, if we choose to do the latter, what form will this appeasement take? Do I take the Boy’s name? Does he take mine? Do we double-barrel and risk the inevitable fumbling, or the lazy dismissal of one of our names? Or do we keep our own, and leave our children to deal with it all instead?

What would you do?

2 thoughts on “What’s in a name? Identity vs. Marital Tradition

  1. Oh Kim… 😦

    It’s awkward and stressful and infuriating, but I think you need to do what will make you happy. Neither of you wants to resent the other (or anyone else for that matter) for forcing you to do something you don’t want to. It may be difficult for family members to accept, but it’s your name and it’s your choice. I’ve seen so many petty arguments between family members over the dozen (feels like) weddings going on around me at the moment and it just makes the couple miserable.

    I hope that people can accept that this wedding is about you and Matt and work to help make it special rather than enforcing their views on you both (however well they mean). Congratulations again. You are adorable together. xxx


  2. Personally, I think it’s great your surnames merge so successfully. I could never combine my name with Mark’s. We’d become Wheelberrow. Nobody wants that (well, I’m sure other people do, but we don’t).

    Also you should do what you want to do. Your family will have to accept it even if they’re a little hurt at first. ‘Tis the nature of change. PESKY CHANGE!


Go on, let me know what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s