Can't agree on baby's surname!

Jo_R_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.

I thought this was a really good post, and have a few thoughts about some things you said:

1. I mean, what happens when two double-barrelled people have a baby? Does the baby have a quadruple-barrelled surname so everyone feels included? Obviously this could be a problem! My two DDs have both my and my ex's surname, but not hypenated. So it kinda reads like 'Anne Smith Jones' and 'Beverley Smith Jones' (for example.) I wasn't married when we had them and thought that when they were older, they could choose how they wanted to be known. Interestingly, at nursery, DD1 often got referred to as 'Anne Jones' rather than 'Anne Smith Jones' which used to really get to me - it turns out after ex left, they called her 'Anne Jones' because they thought Jones was MY surname and that I'd change it because their dad had left.

Anyway - my point was that as far as I'm concerned, although both DDs have two names in the surname box of their birth certificates, when they get older or if they marry, they can choose themselves which surnames they want.

2. 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. OH is one who feels not that his surname should be 'imposed' exactly, but he has expressed that he feels it is an integral part of being a family and getting married and it could be a deal breaker if I don't.

3. 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. I totally see what you are saying here. Thing is, I feel that a father IS an integral part of a child's young life. Yes I am carrying our baby and I will feed babe myself, but there's a whole wealth of the rest of baby's life that is not exclusively tied to me that the father can be involved in, so to me, that argument holds no ground.

The child taking it's father's surname can be seen as a lovely way of cementing the family unit, but also vice versa don't you think? It could work either way.

4. 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 think it's lovely that you feel proud, and I would indeed feel proud to marry my OH, should that happen. I would however want to know that he felt just as proud and would be prepared to show that in exactly the same way as he would expect me to - otherwise I would want to know why - double standards to me.

I understand that you think of your surname now as 'your' (ie you and your DH's) surname and you were proud to take it. My next point would be why shouldn't it be him taking your surname and him feeling proud - which I feel is answered by what you have said earlier about having that bond with the father through name. I guess I'm saying did you do this because it's tradition? If I understand correctly the traditions of the woman taking her husband's surname was to show that she was his property, effectively - or maybe someone can correct me on this?

I just feel tradition has a lot to answer for and for me, it concerns me that a man would be happy for me to get rid of my name for his.

SarahNeedle1872

What a great, thought provoking thread..... I will put my 10 pence worth in too.

OH and I are not married (whether we ever do or not remains to be seen - thats not a negative thing though, we just have other plans first!) but there was no question DS was going to take his fathers name.
Whether OH and I marry or not, DS will always be his son, and I believe should have his name. There was no question that DS would have my current surname, as I didn't revert back to my maiden name after my divorce - again couldn't be fussed with all the paperwork! And it would have made no sense at all for him to have my maiden name.
OH also has another son, with a different surname to his, but its also different from his mother and sister's - all very odd!

I do believe that a child born into a relationship/marriage should take its father's name, but if the father is not known/part of its life, then it should take its mother's name. Obviously this doesn't work for everyone, and is only my opinion..... and of course would be different for same-sex relationships.

Whatever you decide Jo, it will be right for you, ultimately as the mother it is your choice. But whatever name you decide on, I hope you have a healthy, happy baby!

Sarah x

Zoetoes

SarahNeedle1872 wrote: »

What a great, thought provoking thread..... I will put my 10 pence worth in too.

OH and I are not married (whether we ever do or not remains to be seen - thats not a negative thing though, we just have other plans first!) but there was no question DS was going to take his fathers name.
Whether OH and I marry or not, DS will always be his son, and I believe should have his name. There was no question that DS would have my current surname, as I didn't revert back to my maiden name after my divorce - again couldn't be fussed with all the paperwork! And it would have made no sense at all for him to have my maiden name.
OH also has another son, with a different surname to his, but its also different from his mother and sister's - all very odd!

I do believe that a child born into a relationship/marriage should take its father's name, but if the father is not known/part of its life, then it should take its mother's name. Obviously this doesn't work for everyone, and is only my opinion..... and of course would be different for same-sex relationships.

Whatever you decide Jo, it will be right for you, ultimately as the mother it is your choice. But whatever name you decide on, I hope you have a healthy, happy baby!

Sarah x

That makes sense, otherwise you would have been giving baby your ex's name, even though it is your name aswell at the moment, you are divorced from him so it makes sense to give baby your OH's surname.

Jo_R_2

SarahNeedle1872 wrote: »

What a great, thought provoking thread..... I will put my 10 pence worth in too.

OH and I are not married (whether we ever do or not remains to be seen - thats not a negative thing though, we just have other plans first!) but there was no question DS was going to take his fathers name.
Whether OH and I marry or not, DS will always be his son, and I believe should have his name. There was no question that DS would have my current surname, as I didn't revert back to my maiden name after my divorce - again couldn't be fussed with all the paperwork! And it would have made no sense at all for him to have my maiden name.
OH also has another son, with a different surname to his, but its also different from his mother and sister's - all very odd!

I do believe that a child born into a relationship/marriage should take its father's name, but if the father is not known/part of its life, then it should take its mother's name. Obviously this doesn't work for everyone, and is only my opinion..... and of course would be different for same-sex relationships.

Whatever you decide Jo, it will be right for you, ultimately as the mother it is your choice. But whatever name you decide on, I hope you have a healthy, happy baby!

Sarah x

Thanks - what you explained about your situation makes total sense. I'm wondering now if things would be different if me and OH were married and having a baby re: names - I can't say for sure if I would feel differently but obviously I would have made a decision on what MY surname would be after marriage which would have some bearing on it (I'm guessing because not in that situation at the mo!)

CelticStar

Jo_R wrote: »

I thought this was a really good post, and have a few thoughts about some things you said:

1. I mean, what happens when two double-barrelled people have a baby? Does the baby have a quadruple-barrelled surname so everyone feels included? Obviously this could be a problem! My two DDs have both my and my ex's surname, but not hypenated. So it kinda reads like 'Anne Smith Jones' and 'Beverley Smith Jones' (for example.) I wasn't married when we had them and thought that when they were older, they could choose how they wanted to be known. Interestingly, at nursery, DD1 often got referred to as 'Anne Jones' rather than 'Anne Smith Jones' which used to really get to me - it turns out after ex left, they called her 'Anne Jones' because they thought Jones was MY surname and that I'd change it because their dad had left.

Anyway - my point was that as far as I'm concerned, although both DDs have two names in the surname box of their birth certificates, when they get older or if they marry, they can choose themselves which surnames they want.

2. 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. OH is one who feels not that his surname should be 'imposed' exactly, but he has expressed that he feels it is an integral part of being a family and getting married and it could be a deal breaker if I don't.

3. 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. I totally see what you are saying here. Thing is, I feel that a father IS an integral part of a child's young life. Yes I am carrying our baby and I will feed babe myself, but there's a whole wealth of the rest of baby's life that is not exclusively tied to me that the father can be involved in, so to me, that argument holds no ground.

The child taking it's father's surname can be seen as a lovely way of cementing the family unit, but also vice versa don't you think? It could work either way.

4. 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 think it's lovely that you feel proud, and I would indeed feel proud to marry my OH, should that happen. I would however want to know that he felt just as proud and would be prepared to show that in exactly the same way as he would expect me to - otherwise I would want to know why - double standards to me.

I understand that you think of your surname now as 'your' (ie you and your DH's) surname and you were proud to take it. My next point would be why shouldn't it be him taking your surname and him feeling proud - which I feel is answered by what you have said earlier about having that bond with the father through name. I guess I'm saying did you do this because it's tradition? If I understand correctly the traditions of the woman taking her husband's surname was to show that she was his property, effectively - or maybe someone can correct me on this?

I just feel tradition has a lot to answer for and for me, it concerns me that a man would be happy for me to get rid of my name for his.

An interesting reply to my post, thanks.

Having read through your points what seems to stand out to me is the fact that your OH is adamant his surname is to be used (and feels this is a 'dealbreaker') and I guess in this situation I would feel much the same as you do - nobody likes to be pushed into a corner!

In my case my OH is a very chilled out person and would have taken my name if I had really felt strongly about it, he did actually mention this when we were getting married. He is quite confident in this way though and not really bothered about what other people think so I suppose I never really felt that anything was imposed on me, I adopted his name by choice. I suppose it all boils down to how you feel about your partner really and whether you think that they want to impose their name on you as some sort of traditional right.

I've just spoken to him now about what he would feel if we had any children though and it turns out that that is another matter altogether. He stated categorically that he would not want his children to have a different name from him. I think this boils down to the idea that a man not giving a baby his name is synonymous with being a 'bad' father - the type of father who has children and then abandons them etc. To my OH, having a child is a responsibility and part of that responsibility is giving the child your name and acknowledging it as yours.

elektra-2007

Jo_R wrote: »

Hi all

I am expecting a baby with OH next year. I have two children from a previous relationship, and they have mine and my partner's surnames, not hyphenated, just like first name, then my surname, then his surname. Primarily because I wasn't happy at them just having his surname and not mine (we weren't married.) He was fine about this and they've kept this name even though we've now split up.

Me and my OH now just CANNOT agree what surname baby will have. He is very traditional, he wants us to get married in the future, and for him this involves me changing my name to his and baby having his surname. Apart from the fact I don't want to change my name (I like it!), I just cannot get on with the thought of baby having just his name.

I understand that OH is as I said, very traditional when it comes to stuff like this, and he sees part of marriage as the woman changing her name to the man's and the kids having the male surname. I don't want to disrespect how he feels as I can see it's really important to him, but equally, I feel really strongly that my name is part of my identity and I a) wouldn't want to change it for marriage, and b) wouldn't agree with baby just having his surname.

OTOH, I'm also concerned about baby having a different surname to my first two children... OH won't go double barrelled so that's another option out the window. I'm not sure what other options there are: I can see poor baby only having a first name - we can just about agree on a couple of those!

Also I don't think my ex would agree to the kids having their names changed in any fashion either.

Any suggestions?

I was pressure by my ex to give my son his name so we went with both hyphened, I regretted it straight away because deep down I knew we were not going to be together forever. When we split i changed his name to mine straight away. I wish now I had just used my name all the time. I will never make that mistake again. How big is the age gap between the kids? If there not going to go to school together the kids will prob not be bothered by different names it will be other kids that point it out....are they old enough to sit down and explian why the baby will have a different name? Its a shame your surname wasnt the last name beacuse then it wouldnt make much difference.

whitewing

DS and I have always had different surnames, simply because his first name goes best with his Dad's surname (although it would be fine with mine as was).

I recently got married and as stated above, using my DH's surname was a definite expectation. I wasn't bothered about it, but now I love being Mrs So-and-so.

DS still has his original name. Whenever he talked about having the same surname as him, it was always that he wanted me to change my name.

I do think it is very important to a father to have the same surname as his child.

tsstss7

carbonmonoxide wrote: »

no problem. I agree with you in a lot of ways and I would never insist my partner took my name if we were to get married - but I did want a child of mine to have my name. I'm no traditionlist but it was important to me. The only way I can explain this is a baby grows inside their mother, feeds from them and will always have that special bond. You can feel quite detached from it all and to have your child named after you means a lot and makes you feel like you a real part of it all.

But if you feel so strongly about this you should do what feels right to you. Alternatively would you consider a double barrel? My friends did this and it could save a lot of arguing. However its not for everyone and my partner and I both agreed our surnames would sound ridiculous bolted together!

This is kind of the reason my two ds's have their respective dad's surnames.

My first relationship had had very dodgy times and so although I was mad about him at the time I always thought it would be better for DS to have that connection with his dad in case we split up (never even crossed my mind that if that did happen I could end up losing DS which is all to easy for a mum these days), naturally when ds2 came along it seemed natural to do the same again although this relationship is solid.

It's a bit wierd I agree and there may come a time when OH and I get married and DS1 is the only "smith" (for example) and the others are all "jones" but DS1 considers himself to be part of both our family and his dad's little family (him and his dad) so I doubt he'll feel isolated.

That said I can't say I blame you for wanting your child to have your name - particularly if you're not sure that you will get married. It can be a pain always having people not be able to tell who your child is at school as they have a different surname. However maybe it'd help your point if you tell OH that if you give LO your name and you and he do get married then you can change the name on the birth certificate then. (I'm sure this is still true)....so all he has to do is marry you....:D

Jo_R_2

CelticStar wrote: »

An interesting reply to my post, thanks.

Having read through your points what seems to stand out to me is the fact that your OH is adamant his surname is to be used (and feels this is a 'dealbreaker') and I guess in this situation I would feel much the same as you do - nobody likes to be pushed into a corner!

In my case my OH is a very chilled out person and would have taken my name if I had really felt strongly about it, he did actually mention this when we were getting married. He is quite confident in this way though and not really bothered about what other people think so I suppose I never really felt that anything was imposed on me, I adopted his name by choice. I suppose it all boils down to how you feel about your partner really and whether you think that they want to impose their name on you as some sort of traditional right.

I've just spoken to him now about what he would feel if we had any children though and it turns out that that is another matter altogether. He stated categorically that he would not want his children to have a different name from him. I think this boils down to the idea that a man not giving a baby his name is synonymous with being a 'bad' father - the type of father who has children and then abandons them etc. To my OH, having a child is a responsibility and part of that responsibility is giving the child your name and acknowledging it as yours.

That's interesting. This is what I like to hear - if only OH could explain a little more about why he feels like he does rather than he 'just does' I might be able to get on board a bit more.

I have to say it makes me chuckle because it turns out my sister and her fiance have had a very similar discussion! They're getting married next year and she told him she wanted to keep her name and he was quite upset about it. I think she may have said about future children having her name... Not sure what our parents have done to us, they've been happily married for 30 years, mum took dad's surname when they got married, we have that surname... My mum is from another country and when over there people always refer to her as 'Mummy C' (her maiden name) instead of 'Mummy D' (her married name), she often receives letters from relatives addressed to 'Mummy C', even though they know she's married, has us kids, etc, and that's always been completely normal. Not sure if that has anything to do with how me and my sister feel but is interesting anyway!

carbonmonoxide

Hi Jo-R

I'm glad my previous comments were of some help and hope you and your OH can discuss this further and he can explain more why he wants the baby to have his surname.

Just one thing that is confusing me in this thread. Why does everyone refer to their children as DS? What does that stand for