Can't agree on baby's surname!

MrsKelly_2

arthur_dent wrote: »

Ok all of what you have said is true, I just feel that it is wrong for a child to have the mothers name it is not about ownership it is about long term commitment.

How is having the mothers name a lack of long term commitment? If i didn't have my fathers name as a child it didnt make him any less my father, and i don't see how true paternity even comes into it, a mother is quite obviously the 'true' mother so if the child doesn't take her name does that mean she isn't? A name is just that...a name. The child knowing his parents is more important than a 'commitment' to your child by giving them your name.

arthur_dent wrote: »

Traditionally a child has the family name, most commonly the fathers as in the past it was more likely for the parents to be married.

Just because something 'traditionally' happens doesn't mean if you don't do it it is a lack of commitment to the father, both the mother and father are equally as important but your opinions don't seem to reflect this!

arthur_dent_2

I am sure that I am not the only one of this opinion (and by the way I am 32 not that old in case anyone was wondering) just perhaps the only one who wishes to give it.

Good luck to the OP and may she have a healthy loved baby.

arthur_dent_2

On a final note to answer my critics, I feel that it is just that, father and mother are equally as important. If a child has not got the fathers name they may not feel as though the mother thinks of them as an equal parent. Mothers have seemed to become the dominant parent and all too often the fathers gets tossed aside into a lesser position just because the mother has carried the baby.

galvanizersbaby

On a final note to answer my critics, I feel that it is just that, father and mother are equally as important. If a child has not got the fathers name they may not feel as though the mother thinks of them as an equal parent. Mothers have seemed to become the dominant parent and all too often the fathers gets tossed aside into a lesser position just because the mother has carried the baby.

Not sure I fully understand where your coming from with this one because what you are saying again could be reversed.

I respect your opinion, but I guess all this talk has made me think about why I took my husband's name when I married automatically (when really children or no children as we didn't have any at the time, I could have kept my name which is much easier to pronounce and I was known by in a professional context)
I guess the answer is that I didn't feel strongly enough at the time and it was tradition as you say but since he left and my life has moved in another direction I was thinking that perhaps it was a little shortsighted of me but I guess I could not have foreseen what was going to happen.

tbh I have no strong opinions either way - a name is just a name after all

Kimberley

I would never have had my kids surname different from mine married or not. If I had married then i'd still have kept my surname.

budget_budd

We named our first son 1 week after my brother had been killed and I cried so much in the registrars office as I know how much it would mean to my OH for our babies to have his surname, but I just could not bear for one minute for my babies to have a different surname to me in case anything happened to OH and they had a different surname to mine. Maybe a bit of an emotional decision but it had to be done and I still don't regret it. After all when we get married we will all have the same name then.

As explained by the registrar, if you marry after the baby is born you have to re-register the birth anyway so you can change babies surname then.

budget_budd

Forgot to say any registrar will tell you (unmarried couples) that it is the MOTHERS responsibility to register the baby, and therefore utimately mothers decision

milliebear00001

I think we'll have a bit of a problem because we both feel strongly about it. If this makes sense (talking to a guy here), I almost find it insulting, talking generally, that I should get rid of my name, the one I've had all my life, for someone elses if I get married, and that a man would think he has some kind of 'right' that a child have his surname, and not mine, like his is more important! Does that make sense? It's like he's saying to me, I'm the man therefore my name is more important than yours.

Sorry to rant, and of course I know it's not exactly like that but that's how I feel sometimes! [/quote]

I am married and took my husband's name so have no direct experience, but my brother in law's wife had two children when they married (not his) who became double-barrelled with her and his names (their father wasn't bothered!) and their new baby just took his dad's name. Dad kept his own name, she double-barrelled. If you really can't agree, then the only option (however dissatisfying!) might be to double-barrell you and/or the kids, and have him keep his own. That way, you are making some concession to his name, but keeping your own?

Incidentally, I changed mine - while considering myself strongly feminist - because I wanted us to have a 'family' name, and only considered my previous surname to be 'inherited' from another man - my dad!

daphne_descends

I decided to give my DS my partner's name, and it's a decision I am happy with.

I doubt we will marry (my choice) and I have no problem in having a different surname to my son - I never even think about it (too busy and tired to be honest!)

But I know that my OH is pleased.

He would have been happy if I'd decided not to, as well - which makes it all the better really.

MrsTinks

I have to say I find this very interesting... OP I hope between you and your OH you find a solution that you are both happy with - if it means so much to you please don't back down on this though...
You have as much right to keep your name as he does! And same goes for the baby.
In this day and age it is a fact that people sometimes change names, sometimes they don't and sometimes men take their wives name. I guess my honest feeling is that if any man would expect me to change my name for them my immediate answer would be then why don't they change it for me... Am I any less valuable or important in the relationship? Because if I am not then why can our family name not be MY last name?
In my case this is what will happen (if OH gets his butt in gear) but if it doesn't then my children will have my name by mutual consent as DH has no fond feelings towards his father and the family name - the only reason he might keep his name is for professional reasons.
I don't see any issue in explaining to people that it's OUR child with MY name... that is if they are rude enough to comment.
Having different names will not make us any less of a family because it's not what makes a family...

and if you want odd... My parents divorced when I was young and both remarried - however my mother KEPT my fathers name when she remarried although her son in that marriage has his fathers name... Our seating plan at the wedding was fun... two Mrs Ks... My stepdad is totally fine with it - but then again my mum babysits my youngest brother for my dad, my other brother from my mums side goes round my dads to fix his pc when it breaks and my sister from my dads side has spent christmas a couple of times at my mums house... Proving that we can be a family without direct blood links or name connections