Obaba Museum

Apart from the wedding ring on her finger, a major badge that quickly sells her out as a married lady is the prevalent culture of replacing her maiden name and adopting her husband’s last name. New trends have had couples meshing or blending their names while some women even reject their husbands’ name and retain their maiden name.

Let us quickly trace the origin of the popular culture of newlywed ladies adopting their husbands’ surnames and how it has evolved over time. However, we need to first understand the relevance of surnames and how they became adopted as a standard for naming.

One of the major reasons humans started using surnames was the need for distinct identification. There were usually too many people with similar names; hence, surnames became necessary to differentiate them or even give them more specific identity. These surnames were usually associated with individual peculiarities distinguishing them from their numerous namesakes. The names could often be associated with their occupation. Examples are: Smith which identifies with the occupation of blacksmithing or goldsmithing; Clark, a clerk; Archer, etc.

A personal feature was also a valid reason for a last name: Grant, for example, symbolised the size of an individual—how large or grand they are; Little to depict one’s little or petite size; Rousseau depicting a redhead.

Specific geographic origins also played a vital role in naming. For example, someone from Wales could take Wallace as a last name. Similarly, one from the woods or fields could take the additional name Woods or Fields.

Identifying you with your father’s name was another means of creating a last name: Richardson (son of Richard), McArthur (Scottish origin, son of Arthur), O’Brien (Irish Origin, grandson of Brien), Powell (son of Howell, Welsh Origin), Dimitrioupolos (Son of Poulos, Greek Origin).

It is assumed that Africans officially did not use surnames till the entry of the Europeans. However, there were surnames used to differentiate between people with similar first names, like the name of the village (Ladi Kwali from the town of Kwali, Abuja), the social status of the family (Ade meaning Crown, for anyone related to royalty examples include, Adebisi, Adejoke,etc), a myth surrounding the child (Ababio, a reincarnate), and Ibn (Son of in Arabic). Hence, the claim that surnaming is European, is an unverifiable myth. When Africans were colonised and westernised, there was a need to use the surnames for records and most just used their fathers’ names. So, Aremu whose father’s name is Adigun would be Aremu Adigun by default.

However, these surnames were only hereditary. Occasionally, a father and a child may have different surnames depending on the parent or the child, if either wants to change it.

Surnames being used as family names, entrenched as hereditary and considered as worth keeping can be traced to the middle ages with aristocratic families using it as an insignia of prestige and/or to preserve official family records.

Women taking their husbands’ surnames was not really a global thing till the patriarchal ‘doctrine of coverture’ brought by the Normans after their conquest of the British society. This doctrine said that women were considered one with their husbands, with the husbands being the ‘one’.

Coverture means to be covered by. So, this doctrine implied that women were now covered by their husbands and they were originally ‘covered’ by their fathers from birth and are not permitted to change their surnames throughout their lives, only from their fathers’ to their husbands’. A court in 1340 was quoted saying  ‘when a woman took a husband, she lost every surname except wife of’.

What this implies is that a married woman has no identity apart from being married and has lost all her ability to function as an individual in society. This doctrine extended to activities women could perform in society. Women were not permitted to participate in legal activities of any kind or own properties and real estate. Basically, anything they owned or wanted to own was considered an extended belonging of their husbands since he ‘owns’ them after marriage.

This doctrine got a facelift sometime around the 14th century when it got scriptural backing from the church. This changed the reason then for which women took their husbands’ surnames from ‘coverture’ to ‘unity’. They became one flesh and blood, spiritually and legally united. Like I said, this was just a facelift not a change of the rules as women still couldn’t do anything legally and the husband was still considered the ‘one’ in the marriage. Take it as mixing black hue with white on a canvas. You get a new colour but it’s still going to be called black, not black and white or whitish-black.

It’s worth noting, however, that this practice was peculiar only to England and its colonies (including the USA), as the French, Netherlands and some other places let the women take their own names or mesh it with their husbands’ names to give new compound names which were sometimes hyphenated.

By the 17th century, women adopting their husbands’ surnames had become a fundamental part of English tradition. However, by the end of the century, women had started clamouring for a review of this old tradition, albeit indirectly.

It started with the pioneer feminist writer Mary Wollstonecraft who, after her marriage to her husband philosopher William Godwin, refused to change her name and instead signed her name as Mary Wollstonecraft femme Godwin. By the 18th century, women had started petitioning the parliament to pass an act to allow women continue using their maiden names after marriage.

This would start off the advocacy for equality of women’s right which continues to this day.

Recently, Women are no longer obligated to use their husbands’ surnames if they can come to a consensus with their spouses. Some husbands have even decided to use their wives’ surnames instead and other couples have meshed their names either to produce a new conjugated name with a hyphen or form a new name altogether.

A research conducted by Simon Duncan a professor at the University of Bradford, UK into the practice of male name taking has revealed that a lot of women still agree to this practice for two major reasons. These are not wanting to break tradition which is, in a way, still subconsciously ingrained in patriarchal power and, secondly, the idea of ‘a good family’ and show of commitment as a unit especially when kids will be involved.

The rise of the LGBTQIA movement in recent years also threatens the continuation of this tradition. Whether in the next half century women will still be using their husbands’ surnames or not is uncertain but one thing is sure, the percentage of women using their husbands’ surnames or even getting married would have reduced drastically to less than a quarter of the population who use it now.

Thanks for reading through, let’s know what you think in the comment section.