The Double Barrelled Last Name Debate

Sorry, but I'd be starting from the position that my baby- that I'm giving birth to - has my name.

If we were married and had the same last name, then that would mean that the baby had our family name. Otherwise not.

I can't count the number of threads I've read where a woman regrets giving her child her DP's name only ... and then marriage isn't forthcoming ... And then they split, she marries and has children with a new partner - and the first child has a different surname.

Not saying you are at all likely to split (!) - but if you did, during all these years that you say you are unlikely to marry, who would the children live with/be registered with the doctor with/be taken to school by? You, 95% likelihood. Logic says the children of an unmarried couple should have the mother's surname.

His argument that its 'his' baby is redundant, if he wants to pull that kind of rank, he loses pretty quickly to the parent who gets to be pregnant, recover, breast feed, give up work for at least half a year...

So personally I think he should be biting your hand off at your very generous offer of DBing the name... give that you don't even have to have him there to register the birth and as you aren't married, he doesn't evenhave the legal right to register it himself!

What tortoise said.

Oh and my kids have a double barrelled name and they arent bullies! Ffs as is having a double barreled name would make you a bully.

Purple monster- why are you struggling for a second! It's a complete no - brainer.

And "but his name is so much nicer than mine" gets a slap too!

YY seeker. And fair warning: the first person to post "but my name was my father's name anyway so it's totally fair to relinquish it" gets a virtual slap.

Mine and both the girls are hyphenated. DH isn't, because he couldn't be arsed doing the paperwork (which, to be fair, is more involved for a bloke...not that that's a sexist situation or anything). So he's the only one without the shared family name. I figure, if he cares, he can join us.

Purplemonster, why on earth would you change your name? You chose yours, you changed it by deed poll, you like it better than his. That's a total no-brainer, surely? If it's that important to you both to share a name, why not suggest that he change to yours, since it's nicer and more meaningful?

This is one of those times when I want to hop in a Tardis and go back to the '70s and have a word with the young woman I was then-

"You know that business about women changing their names on marriage and giving their children their husband's name? That thing we thought would sensibly die out once we stopped thinking of women as a possession to be passed from father to husband? Well, it's 2013, and we're still doing it. Sorry- we let you down"

I doubled mine upon marriage but DS has DH's only. Had we not been married there's no way I would have allowed my child to have a completely different surname. It's tough enough travelling when we share a surname that's not identical anyway!

I'm struggling with this one too, our surnames just don't sound nice double barrelled but I do prefer my surname, it's a name I chose myself as I changed my name by deed poll (still a 'family' name but not the one I was born with) so feel quite attached to my name. I am planning on marrying my partner in a couple of years time but I'm not sure if I want to take his surname or not since mine is a nicer name. We did talk about if we have a girl giving it my surname and if it's a boy his but I don't know what we will actually decide in the end. I think we need to have another chat about it!

Apart, obviously, from Smith Jones being a way of telling the woman "yes, calm down dear, you're name's there too, see? Oh, I know we don't really use it, but it's there- what are you making such a fuss about?"

And what on earth is the difference between Smith Jones and Smith-Jones?

Why can't the father's name be the middle name? Or the first of the two un hyphenated last names which will, in reality, never be used and will end up as just another first name?

Personally I'd also be going with "when/if we marry, why don't we all hyphenate to reflect the coming together of two individuals, then we'll match DC". Since either way, it's two name changes: you and DC, or you and DP.

And, yeah, what Tortoise said.

We did what PoppyAmex said - two surnames, first mine then DP's, no hyphen. Registrar was fine with it, nobody else has raised any eyebrows. (Once in a while you get a computer system that can't cope with two unhyphenated last names e.g. at our pharmacist - I'm not bothered about a hyphen being put in under these circs.)
Maybe my DC's will drop one or other of the names in later life, or demote it to a middle name, that's okay with me. Surnames as middle names is traditional in my (Scottish) family.

Like anyone whose children's surname doesn't match theirs, now that mine are a bit older, I occasionally get phone calls that go "hello, are you Mrs Mysurname DPssurname?", but answering "I'm DS1's mum, what can I do for you?" usually works ;)

Everything Tortoise said.

In that situation I would be giving the baby my surname, and letting DP know that when you marry, you'll change both names.

Oh for fuck's sake.

It's traditional that babies have the man's name, but he's not fussed about the 'tradition' of getting married before you procreate?

The baby is his - and it's not yours?

It's not even that you're arguing for your name and he's arguing for his. You're arguing for both and he's arguing for his. That's ridiculous - yours IS the compromise position already. He's being a knob. Sorry, but he is. WHY should his name trump yours? There is exactly no good reason.

I'm also sick to death of the 'what about when they marry another double-barrelled' argument. If they're old enough to marry someone, they're old enough to work out a compromise on names. That's no reason to make a decision on anything, it's just an excuse. People have had double-barrelled names forever, it's hardly so unprecedented that they'll grow up, get to the church door and then panic.

If you have children you will be presumed to be a Mrs anyway.

My son has my maiden name as a middle name and DHs name as his surname. I also kept my maiden name as a middle name when I got married, and DC2 will also have my name as a middle name. Works for me as a way of retaining a connection to my family, and works for DH as he gets to keep the 'tradition'.

I agree with HazleNutt too.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of why should the child take the identity of only one parent, if you keep both names, where do you stop as the generations progress? Your great great great grandchildren would have a whole list of hyphenated names bogging them down. Personally, my feeling is that my maiden name was only a sliver of my identity and not representative of any of my female ancestors anyway, so I didn't feel strongly about hanging onto it. I also find double-barrelled surnames unwieldy and rather pretentious if I'm honest. The kids I knew at school with them were all faintly embarrassed by them and edited them down to one name as soon as they reached adulthood.

If you use both surnames but don't hyphenated then you can choose which or both to use.

If it's hyphenated then that is your name.

What HazelNutt said.

I'd just be giving the baby my surname if the dad wasn't offering to marry me.

In same situation, but dont think i wan2 use my surname, so might use my Great nans (who is nearly 100) Me and oh think this is great but other people are complaining and moaning!