Child's Surname

anotherginger

Person_one wrote: »

I'd want a marriage on an equal footing and I don't think one partner giving up their previous identity to take on the other's is the best way to start out! Maybe if men changed their names on marriage in the same numbers that women do I'd feel differently but as long as its mainly us coming under pressure to do so nobody can convince me that there isn't sexism at work.

I like what you're saying.

When will women stop changing their names to signify that they are now the property of their husband!!??

I think the tradition of being the 'property' of your father, to be passed on to be the 'property' of your husband is pretty outdated!

Kavanne

anotherginger wrote: »

I like what you're saying.

When will women stop changing their names to signify that they are now the property of their husband!!??

I think the tradition of being the 'property' of your father, to be passed on to be the 'property' of your husband is pretty outdated!

I'm not changing my name

pinkshoes

Wow! So many different points of view to think about, many I hadn't even considered.

I really don't like double barrelled names (no offence to anyone who has one!), as I just feel they sound tacky.

I guess my initial thoughts on "it" having my OH's surname is probably out of laziness, as it'll save changing it if/when we get married!! TBH, neither of us has thought much about it, as we're both quite laid back, but figured it's something we ought to decide before I get fatter and crankier!

I quite like the traditionalist view of taking the father's name. But someone said about giving it my name as I'm neither engaged or married, which I also quite like. (OH has taken note... ).

amcluesent wrote: »

If you're asking that question, I can't see you staying together much longer...just saying.

If you're going to write something controversial like that, you could at least state why!

I disagree; I think it's an important question to discuss and decide on now, rather than after the birth! We are a team, thus decide things together.

shellsuit

pinkshoes wrote: »

Wow! So many different points of view to think about, many I hadn't even considered.

I really don't like double barrelled names (no offence to anyone who has one!), as I just feel they sound tacky.

I guess my initial thoughts on "it" having my OH's surname is probably out of laziness, as it'll save changing it if/when we get married!! TBH, neither of us has thought much about it, as we're both quite laid back, but figured it's something we ought to decide before I get fatter and crankier!

I quite like the traditionalist view of taking the father's name. But someone said about giving it my name as I'm neither engaged or married, which I also quite like. (OH has taken note... ).




If you're going to write something controversial like that, you could at least state why!

I disagree; I think it's an important question to discuss and decide on now, rather than after the birth! We are a team, thus decide things together.

I can only suggest then, that if you and your OH will get married in the future and you will take his name, that you give the baby his name when you register him, to save babs having a different name to you both.

If marriage isn't on the cards yet, I'd put the baby in your name.

Saying that though, it all depends on what you and your OH are happy with.

jackomdj

Our girls have their Dad's surname. We did not consider anything else.

We are not married, we have been todether 15 years & we will probably get married one day.

clairec79

We had our eldest before we got married, when we were living together - she had his surname. We got married when expecting the second and we all now have the same name.

I think had we not been living together then I may have felt differently, but to me we were in a committed relationship and were planning to get married one day so it made sense to have the name we'd all have (had we both not had long names I may have considered hyphenating - but really an 18 letter surname is too much for a child, never mind me)

JC9297

My sons, aged 17 and 13, have my partner of 22 years' surname. To me giving a child the mother's surname suggests the father was not around when the child was born or was not considered a permanent fixture in the mother and child's lives. All of the other families I know in our situation i.e. long term relationship but not married, the children have dad's name. I also have friends who are married, the wife has kept her name and the kids have their dad's surname. I don't know anyone where the dad is around but the children have mum's surname.

pimento

Pity the genealogists of the future.

ChristinaWilson

I couldn't even tell you what the norm is anymore. My daughter's both have my husband's surname as do I. But, that's more or less because we are married. Had we not been married, they probably would have my surname. It would just be easier to explain that way to people, I think.

svmitche

Both of ours have OH's surname and we never considered anything else really. We're not married but intend to be one day, but we have been together 12 years and have built a life together so I personally consider that to be as much of a commitment as being married!