It’s a legacy of Coverture, which emerges from English common law and therefore spread through the English speaking world.
There’s an approximately ELI5 here: [https://amazingwomeninhistory.com/law-of-coverture-why-call-a-woman-by-her-husbands-name/](https://amazingwomeninhistory.com/law-of-coverture-why-call-a-woman-by-her-husbands-name/)
The concept of coverture ends in the 19th century when the “Married Women’s Property Act” or some similar title is passed in most jurisdictions. It was 1882 in England, earlier in some parts of the USA, later in countries still part of the Empire. There was also an accumulating body of case law making the same basic point.
The (incorrect) claim that Mr Jed Bartlett’s wife is “really” Mrs Jed Bartlett even if she calls herself Dr Abigail Bartlett or even Dr Abigail SomeOtherName dies hard: there is a huge cultural assumption that, for example, you’re being an asshole to refuse to respond to letters addressed to a name that isn’t yours.
A regular thing on AITA or Wedding forums is the case of people inviting relatives to weddings and “Mr and Mrs Jed Bartlett”, being surprised that some people are offended, and then making some claim that it’s “etiquette” or “correct” or “traditional” to do this. It isn’t: it’s just rude. It isn’t either correct or polite to call people by a name that isn’t theirs, and “their name” is “whatever they call themselves” — people do not in general have some shadow legal name lurking in the background which they don’t use, and particularly not as a result of marriage.
In answer to the question “how would the queen of England address a letter to Dr Jane Jones who is married to Mr John Smith” the answer is “by whatever name the woman in question chooses to be addressed”. The end. There is no other answer.
Latest Answers