Un-Married Parents - Whose Surname Does Your Child Have and Why?

notanewuser

Mojisola wrote: »

I know a couple who chose a completely different name so Mr Brown and Ms Smith became Mr and Mrs Flower (not the real names). They weren't happy about any of the options of keeping separate names, using his or her name, double-barrelling and whose name to give to children - a new family name was their solution.

I was prepared to do this but DH wasn't. So we kept our own names. 10 years on it still works. I never ever use his name, and he's been called Mr Myname enough times over the years to see how annoying it is when people assume.

DD came along well into our marriage. She shares her dad's surname, and has mine as a second middle name. She can use whatever she likes when she's older. I never felt the need for her to have my surname as hers - our bond is physical and far stronger the a name. In fact, I didn't choose her other names either (but they were from a short list I'd approved).

alwaysskint96

Counter wrote: »

What would you have done in the situation where your partner couldn't understand giving them the name of partner to whom they are not married (i.e. your name)? Would you have had to come up with a third option?

Having been the one giving birth then Id have first call on that TBH

Theoretically an unmarried mother could register the child in any name she chooses- and even not have the fathers details on at all as he needs to be present ( or did when my lot were born) However an unmarried father cannot go and register a baby's birth alone

PenguinJim

alwaysskint96 wrote: »

Having been the one giving birth then Id have first call on that TBH

We will have a similar system. I will have first call because I am the tallest.

anotheruser

McKneff wrote: »

Im intrigued as to why you would want to know????

djdido2 wrote: »

Interested to know why the OP is asking the question?

Because I see some women on the forum who are almost offended at people thinking they would change their last name to match their husbands.
Yet when it comes to children, it's almost automatic to give the fathers' surname.

So I wonder why it is fine in one case but causes immense offence in the other, when they are more or less the same thing.

However, it seems there is a fair amount of those who have children with their mothers' surname.

Mojisola wrote: »

Un-Married Parents - Whose Surname Does Your Child Have and Why?

Are you assuming that all women change their name when they marry?

I'm struggling to see how you have made that connection from the sentence I wrote, so I can't answer you.

PenguinJim

Wouldn't your answer just be "no"?

Mojisola

anotheruser wrote: »

I'm struggling to see how you have made that connection from the sentence I wrote, so I can't answer you.

Most of the younger couples I know have all kept their own surnames following marriage so they are in exactly the same position as unmarried couples when it comes to naming the children.

springdreams

Billie-S wrote: »

I agree. But what did the father of your child think about yours and his baby having your surname?

Most women I know who have a baby/babies with a man they they are not married to, almost always give the baby(s) the man's surname. Yet, on this thread, there seems to be a lot of women giving the baby their surname.

Strange.

I didn't ask for his opinion.

We were not married. I was the one that carried our baby for 9 and a half months (he was 2 weeks late and had to be induced otherwise he would have been even later!). I was the one that went through 3 days of intense labour, painful cuts in places you don't want them and I also was the one that looked after our baby 95% of the time - it was therefore my choice to give my DS my last name. If my last name had been the same as DS's dad when he was born then we would all have had the same last name ...

His dad did get to choose his first name however, which I as the only one with parental responsibility was at liberty to refuse to name DS if I chose. It is an unsual and lovely name, however, so I agreed to it.

Pington

My partner and I are expecting our first baby next year and have our wedding booked a few months after the expected due date.

Our baby will have his surname, and I will take the same name when we marry. This is my choice; he is open to the idea of him taking my name, me keeping my maiden name or for us to create a new surname as a concotion of our two names. The one thing neither of us are keen on is double barrelling, because the names aer both quite long and sound awful together! However I'm happy to just take his name; it is more common and easier to spell than mine, and I would like us to all have the same name together as a family. I would like to have some legacy of my surname in there but it wouldnt work as a middle name. Instead we've decided to name the baby my old nickname (a derivation of my surname) if it's a girl.

My parents didn't marry until I was ten years old, but my mother changed her surname to my father's when I was born. We all had the same name as a family without them being married; that doesn't seem to be something you see much these days.

TonyMMM

Emkayoli wrote: »

My first has my surname as her father wasn't there to register so she had to have mine.

You can give the child any surname you want, the father being present has nothing to do with it.

Him not being there meant he couldn't be named on the certificate as the father, but you could have still used his surname if you wanted to.

danielanthony

I saw a person on FaceBook with a quad-barrelled name.

Sign of the times.