Some of your correspondents (Letters, 31 March) appear to be totally missing the point that Joanna Moorhead (Don’t dare call me Mrs. I kept my own name for a reason, 29 March) is trying to make.
She wishes to be called by her own name, the name that she was born with, not her husband’s name. That it is her father’s surname has nothing to do with it. The fact is that other people routinely ignore her wishes. Would men like it if they were treated in this manner?
I totally sympathise with her as this happens to me all the time, despite the fact that at the end of his speech my father announced that “the bride will be keeping her own name”.
Ms Phred Goodhead
(Happily married to Dave Ballantyne for 36 years)
Melksham, Wiltshire
• There is another reason for not changing your name when you get married. More than 40 years ago and in my early 20s, I wasn’t consciously the feminist I later became. I just felt very strongly that the name I’d always had was part of my identity and it didn’t feel right to lose that part of me.
Alice Curteis
St Andrews, Fife
• Joan Mazumdar (Letters, 31 March) could simply address her envelope to “Jane Doe and John Smith” – no title needed for either. Quakers have been doing this as a matter of principle since the 17th century.
Pam Lunn
Kenilworth, Warwickshire
• One answer is to choose a name you both like and both change your surnames, like we did on marriage in 1996.
Sue Canon and Rob Canon
(From Pachelbel’s Canon in D)
Sowerby Bridge, West Yorkshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
