Can't agree on baby's surname!

shellsuit

budget_budd wrote: »

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.

Why would you have to re-register your childs birth if you choose to get married afterwards.

I don't think that's correct is it?

Zoetoes

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.

Yes it is so, so wrong, the mother isn't worthy at all.

May I just point out that it is 2008??

Zoetoes

arthur_dent wrote: »

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.

Then likewise, if the child has the father's surname the mother may not feel as though the father thinks of them as an equal parent.

skintchick

I really didn;t want to change my name when I got married but it was something OH felt very strongly about (although couldn;t explain why!) so I gave in but our baby will have my maiden name as a middle name, so for example I was Mary Smith and am now Mary Jones, and baby will be Zechariah Obadiah Smith Jones, not double barrelled but just as a name.

That way my name continues as well.

And anyway, when it comes to knowing who the parents are, you KNOw the mother is the mother but who knows FOR SURe the father is the father? Unless you do a DNA test you can only take the woman's word for it, which is why I think society should be matriarchal, not patriarchal.

pboae

shellsuit wrote: »

Why would you have to re-register your childs birth if you choose to get married afterwards.

I don't think that's correct is it?

You don't have to re-register the birth, but you are allowed to.

If the parents are unmarried and the mother registers the child with her surname, but names the father on the birth certificate, then if they later marry they are allowed to re-register the birth and give the child the father's surname.

If the parents don't marry, it is still possible (if you are both in agreement) to re-register the birth with the father's surname.

If the baby is initially registered with the father's surname it is NOT possible to re-register with the mother's surname later on.

So in the OP's position, if they can't reach a compromise, it would make more sense to register it in her surname, and that way she can keep her options open, at least until the child is old enough to know it's name.


EDIT: to add re-registering means a new birth certificate will be issued. There are very few situations in which this is the case, but this is one. Of course if both parents agree they can call the baby anything in daily life, regardless of what it says on the birth certificate. If they can't agree, they can apply to court to have it decided for them.

CelticStar

I know this is going to be deeply unfashionable as a view but I really hate all this untidy chopping and changing with surnames. I mean, what happens when two double-barrelled people have a baby? Does the baby have a quadruple-barrelled surname so everyone feels included? It all seems a bit complicated and daft to me. I'm a very liberal and feminist woman but I hate all these unnecessary breaks with tradition when there is no real need for them. I doubt very much that men seriously believe their surnames should be imposed on their wives or children any more, but I imagine they probably like it if their name is assumed voluntarily and feel a bit hurt if it is rejected. Surely in these days of numerous uninterested and absent fathers we should encourage any bond that men wish to have with their children.

I also find it bizarre that that there's a feeling that rejecting a husband's name is somehow independent and liberated, when it usually means that a woman keeps her father's surname instead! How on earth is that more liberated than assuming a husband's surname?

I think that one of the earlier male posters had a good point when they said that the mother has a powerful natural bond to the child through pregnancy, breastfeeding (if she chooses to breastfeed that is) etc and that the child taking its father's surname is a lovely way of cementing the family unit and including the father in something that can often seem to exclude him when children are young and depend so much on their mother.

No offence to anyone on here who chooses a different path (different things suit different people) but I happily took my husband's name when I married nearly ten years' ago 'cause I'm proud to be his wife, and if I ever decide to have children then they will have 'our' surname as well because that's how I think of it now, as our surname, regardless of where it came from originally. I like the way it binds us together and if we do have children I want them to be bound to us in that way as well as all the others.

ailuro2

Do it the same way as the Europeans do - when the Betty Smith marries Jimmy Jones, she becomes Betty Smith-Jones, so she has a tie from her old name to her new one. The kids are given the father's surname so when they grow up they can link into their husband's family and still have just a double barrelled name instead of triple barrelled or worse.

When we had DD, again way back in 1998, we gave her my OH's surname, as it meant she didn't have to change her name when we got married, as we knew we would eventually - so even though DD was a 'surprise' baby we knew the committment was 100% and gave her her Daddy's name.

one thing for you to think about - I think it happens in Finland, I read about it the other day, the kids are given their parent's choice of first name, then their surname is sonofJimmy, or daughterofJimmy if they are a girl, so if there is onlt one boy and girl in the family they all have different surnames!

MrsTinks

ailuro2 wrote: »

Do it the same way as the Europeans do - when the Betty Smith marries Jimmy Jones, she becomes Betty Smith-Jones, so she has a tie from her old name to her new one. The kids are given the father's surname so when they grow up they can link into their husband's family and still have just a double barrelled name instead of triple barrelled or worse.

When we had DD, again way back in 1998, we gave her my OH's surname, as it meant she didn't have to change her name when we got married, as we knew we would eventually - so even though DD was a 'surprise' baby we knew the committment was 100% and gave her her Daddy's name.

one thing for you to think about - I think it happens in Finland, I read about it the other day, the kids are given their parent's choice of first name, then their surname is sonofJimmy, or daughterofJimmy if they are a girl, so if there is onlt one boy and girl in the family they all have different surnames!

Actually all the "nordic" countries used to do this and all have stopped it (she says BEING Nordic ) so say in Iceland Anja's daughter lisa would be Lisa anjasdottir - in Norway Fredricks son Alex would be Alex Fredrickson I won't write any Finnish ones as I can't spell in Finnish and I would get the spelling wrong but I believe the only people that might still use this are the Sami who live in Northern Sweden and Finnland. But they are a VERY traditional people

I don't understand why it's lack of commitment from the mother to not give the child the fathers last name though - SURELY having the child is the largest commitment you can possibly make!

arthur_dent_2

CelticStar wrote: »

I know this is going to be deeply unfashionable as a view but I really hate all this untidy chopping and changing with surnames. I mean, what happens when two double-barrelled people have a baby? Does the baby have a quadruple-barrelled surname so everyone feels included? It all seems a bit complicated and daft to me. I'm a very liberal and feminist woman but I hate all these unnecessary breaks with tradition when there is no real need for them. I doubt very much that men seriously believe their surnames should be imposed on their wives or children any more, but I imagine they probably like it if their name is assumed voluntarily and feel a bit hurt if it is rejected. Surely in these days of numerous uninterested and absent fathers we should encourage any bond that men wish to have with their children.


I also find it bizarre that that there's a feeling that rejecting a husband's name is somehow independent and liberated, when it usually means that a woman keeps her father's surname instead! How on earth is that more liberated than assuming a husband's surname?

I think that one of the earlier male posters had a good point when they said that the mother has a powerful natural bond to the child through pregnancy, breastfeeding (if she chooses to breastfeed that is) etc and that the child taking its father's surname is a lovely way of cementing the family unit and including the father in something that can often seem to exclude him when children are young and depend so much on their mother.

No offence to anyone on here who chooses a different path (different things suit different people) but I happily took my husband's name when I married nearly ten years' ago 'cause I'm proud to be his wife, and if I ever decide to have children then they will have 'our' surname as well because that's how I think of it now, as our surname, regardless of where it came from originally. I like the way it binds us together and if we do have children I want them to be bound to us in that way as well as all the others.

Yes this is what I meant, just put so much more elegantly.

miserly_mum

My 2 older boys with my ex hubby have his surname. I kept his name after divorce simply because I couldn't be bothered changing official stuff like passports etc.

When I met my OH and we had my youngest son 2 years ago there was no question he would take his Daddys surname on both our parts. I think its only natural that a man would want his child to carry his name.

My older 2 boys had no problem with having a different surname to their wee brother. They had actually already assumed thats what would happen because obviously the baby had a different Dad from them. They were 9 and 7 at the time.

When we get married i'll change my name to OH's and give my boys the option of using OH's surname (if they want to). BTW they have no contact with their Dad by his choice or I wouldn't even suggest this.

I would need his permission to change their names legally but they can be "known as" my OH's surname in school and day to day etc and can change it when they are 16. But again only if THEY want to.

The most important thing to me and my OH is we all accept and love each other as one new family.....names in all honesty are neither here or there.