To name all of your children after your ex husband

If the only reason you change your name is because you marry someone, what’s the rationale for keeping it when you’ve ditched the husband?
You surely can’t be that attached to a name you only decided to use because it belonged to your erstwhile husband.

No one seems at all worried or confused I have a different name to my kids. It is a weird that she gave her other kids some unrelated man's name. I can't imagine what is going on in this woman's life that the subsequent fathers allowed it.

And older siblings with the same family name own a bigger percentage because they've had it longer? But what if the older sibling is a girl and the younger sibling a boy...?

I kept my married name when I divorced so I had the same name as DS. Had we not married, I intended changing my name by deed poll anyway so I would still have the same name as DS. I didn’t particularly like my maiden name, and I am NC with my dad so I have no meaningful connection to it that would make me want to go back to it.

I certainly don’t see it as my ‘married’ name, it’s MY name that I consciously chose.

My mum also kept her married name after her and dad divorced as she wanted the same name as me and my brother, but after we both married she decided to revert to her maiden name.

Had I not married and not had a child, I probably would have changed by deed poll to my mums maiden name as I prefer it to my dads and have more connection to that side of my family.

Names are very personal and have a lot of meaning in my eyes. I can see why the lady OP describes has named her children in the way she has

Makes it easier for travel.

Yeah I think it’s really weird too.

Men who insist on their wives and children taking their surname should bear in mind that this scenario is always a possibility. In the UK, once a wife takes on her husband's name, it becomes her name and that's that.

But not in Romania, apparently. A Romanian colleague told me recently that when a couple get divorced there, the husband can insist that his ex-wife reverts to her previous surname, even if she will then have a different surname from her children.

Shock! Horror! She gave her kids her surname.

Men insist on their wives taking their names. When the wife does that the name becomes hers. It's not conditional on her staying in the marriage. It's her name. They can't decide how she uses it moving forward or that they want it back.

I had a discussion about this with my husband. He said he couldn't understand why a woman would keep their married name. I explained that if we divorce I'd be happy to change it after we've changed all the children's names to my maiden name or double barrelled and if he bares the accociated costs. He shut up very quickly.

What?!?

Once again, I am not saying it's a tradition to give the kids their mother's surname. You don't need to address that point in your replies to me. We're only talking about your 'technically' claim.

So, how does it work for a surname to be more one person's than another, is there like a percentage calculator somewhere that we can use? I would like to hear more about the rationale and practicalities around this fairly bizarre claim. What if the man wasn't born with the surname he and his wife later share, is it like seven eighths of a surname? Enquiring minds want to know!

Exactly. That's where the confusion arises and people insisting it's traditional for children to take their father's name.

I mean, logically until very recently, a woman (and society) knew a baby she gave birth to was related to her but a man couldn't know for certain whether any particular child was related to him.

I'm convinced this is the root of the oppression of women throughout time and space.

Apparently it was only ever meant as a joke, but if you tell a child something often enough...

4 by 4 is grim, dont care what anyone says.

I can’t imagine any father saying to her daughter that her name is borrowed and she can only keep it until she gets married. What kind of father does that ? Seriously !

It isn’t true though. It’s not a tradition. It’s not correct to say it’s a fact that it’s a tradition. It’s very nuanced clearly.

I still use my married name. Because o wanted to have the same name as my dc. And I am known professionally by that name now. Is that weird? I don’t have kids with anyone else though.

It’s the name the father was born with and has had all his life so it’s more the father’s surname. Yes it’s the mother’s surname too if she decides to take his name. But you can’t say it’s a tradition to give kids their mother’s surname based on the fact that most mothers change their name when they get married then give the kids the name they have changed to.

Whereas I was bought up beimg told that my surname wasn't really mine, it would only be used until I got married. Which I've not done.

Doesn't mean it's not true!

You just don't realise it because until recently most couples were married before havung children and the wife followed the tradition of changing her name to that of her husband. So, when the baby was named after her, she had changed her name to his beforehand.

Babies born out of wedlock would often be given their mother's surname, unless they were an established couple who just hasn't got married. Not unusual amongst poorer folk as marriage was a way to control the inheritance of wealth and they didn't have any!

As an aside, there's no such thing as a legal name under English law, it's all tradition and you can call yourself whatever you like.

I didn't say it was. I asked why you think this is 'technically' the father's name, despite it being both. So, why?

I don’t think there is anything radically feminist about keeping your ex’s surname.

To me the name I was born with is my name full stop. I’m not “borrowing “ it from anyone. It’s my fathers surname but if I’d been given my mothers maiden name as my surname at birth I would consider that to be my surname .

I think your colleague didn't want everyone in her household to have a different last name and this was the solution. The only way to give all her children her maiden name and change her name back would have involved changing the last name of a child whose parents were married, and I don't know if you can do that if dad doesn't agree.

So you're saying men's names are a signal of ownership of another human being? His wife, his children. How dare she give 'his' name to a human being he doesn't own.

I.e A woman's name is never her own, it's her father's or her husband's to bestow upon her if he sees fit and to remove again if she displeases or leaves him.

This is the kind of misogynistic tosh that people unthinkingly absorb and which perpetuates the patriarchy.

Could you explain why you think it is "technically the fathers surname"? And not the mothers surname?

The fact remains,the historical default has been that the baby takes the mothers surname at birth - if she changed her surname on being married it's usually that one, if she isn't married the default was then her surname.