It's handy when the parents and the kids all have the same name. And of course, patriarchal inheritance laws make it easier if it's the man's name.... But there's no truly good reason, just convenience

Actually I always said kids should take their mothers name. YOu can always be sure of who the mother is

I think it depends on the name. I had a friend from school called Julie Roots (does that translate in american? In Australian it is slang for sexual intercourse). Anyhow everytime she was introduced her name was intentionally turned into a verb and some smart arse would say 'Does she?" She married at 18!

But then I did know a woman who, when married changed her name to Bonks.....I mean WHY would you??

While below I said that all my sons took husbands name but all four had my last name added in as another family name...not hyphenated. My single brother is the last of our branch of the family so I wouldn't mind if one or more of my sons dropped their last name.

I kept my own name when I married. I recall saying to husb to be..."Do you want to change your name to Douglas?" and naturally he said no. So I said, 'well I don't think I'll change my name either". He was cool with that. We didn't go for hyphenated names so we made a pact that if we had sons they would take his name, and the girls would take my name.

I had four SONS!!

Anyhow it was only after his death that I wished I'd taken his name. 20 yrs on I'm happy I kept my own name.

No

When we decide on a name for certain we're both going to change our names.

It should be a choice. My daughter added to hers via the all mighty hyphen, but the discussed him taking hers. Why not start a tradition of the couple taking their own made up name.

Depends on the couple..

I really like the Spanish system. Both partners keep their main names, but their children inherit the father's first family name and the mother's first family name in that order.
So say John Smith-Jones marries Mary Williams-Brown. Their children will be (name) Smith-Williams. Their grandson's children will be (name) Smith-?? and their granddaughter's children (name) ??-Smith.
This makes it very easy to trace back lineage, both paternal and maternal.
Thus, my children's surnames would be Finne-Dent, throughout their lives, despite marrying a Humble and a Downs. But my granddaughter and grandson, from my daughter, would be Humble-Finne. If my son ever has offspring they would be Finne-Downs.

Keeping one's maiden name could make things confusing for descendants doing geneological research at a future point in time. But so far as I'm concerned, one should be able to go by any name they wish--be it "Rumplestiltskin", "Lollapoluzza",or "Santa Claus"! In fact, I'd like to see ID laws abolished. Merely asking to see one's "ID" is an invasion of privacy. Prior to mandatory social security cards in the early 1930s, Americans could, in fact, go by any alias they wished.

Allow choice .

My ex had some of the issues that you did although she got her maiden name back in the divorce. That does not mean that loans or certificates automatically have to change your name back. There is a fee for that.

I also believe that IF a woman chooses not to change her name at marriage, that is her business. Why would she have to?