It's intersting how generations of successfull girls each marrying someone higher in society than her parents wouldn't be traced by this study on surnames.
Successful women tend to keep their surname after marriage. I did. Some consider me mildly successful I guess? It is also because I didn't want to lose my identity I had for 30 years, and I am not the property of my husband.
Many of us are under the impression that this option is relatively recent. That is, historically you didn't have a choice as to whether to keep your name or not. That not the case?
(Or course, I'm curious how much choice anyone had. Many "surnames" that we know are either occupation or city of origin based. Or am I off on that, as well?)
I absolutely agree with your position re: property etc, but for how many generations has the practice you're describing (keeping your surname after marriage) been common for, though? One...maybe.
It is becoming easier and easier to keep separate surnames, I'd guess more and more people will do as you did. It's sad it still clashes in some people's mind and paperworks (ironicly non official agencies most of the time, i.e. my wife kept her name and we can't sign up as married in some bank forms because of a stupid name validation on the fields.
This is a good point but ultimately the important thing is what surname the children get since that is what passed down.
Also this is a random ass guess and backed up by absolutely no data, but I'd bet a sizable amount of money that couples that follow the traditional system of giving everyone the man's name have significantly more children on average than couples who don't, so while your situation may be a factor it is probably currently nothing more than statistically noise.
FWIW, I think you made the right choice. Expecting women to lose the familial history via naming should seem pretty ridiculous in this day and age but it is one of those things that flies under the radar even for a lot of people who are otherwise pretty enlightened about gender issues.
