Surname when parents aren't married

I was a lone parent to DD for 4 years, she had my surname. I then met and married DH and asked her if she wanted to keep her surname or change it as I was changing mine...I don't really get on with my father and fancied a change of name anyhow. DD opted to double barrell it.

I'm due my 2nd baby in April, they too will have a double barrelled surname like DD.

I would only give the fathers surname to a child born in wedlock, otherwise it would have my surname

Whatever suits you

My Dc were born before we married and we agreed to double-barrel their surname so both of our families were represented. I didn't change my name when did get married, but it's the double-barrelled version that's on our front door for the whole family.

It's rather unimaginative to assume that the risk of splitting is the only reason for giving a child the same name as its mother... there have been SO many threads about surnames and women have given plenty of reasons for keeping their surnames and passing them on to their children (just as other women have given reasons for taking their husband's surname and giving children their father's name only).

father not mother

FFS. Some women want to keep their own name (married or not) and share that name with their children. That will be the case whether or not they split up with the mother.

But some people are the complete opposite and want to keep their name, feel that DC should have the mother's name in case of a future split etc. This is what I mentioned earlier. I can't understand that mentality. In the case of a break up I thought it was the adults split up not the children. The children are still the fathers children regardless of his relationship status with their mother.

We have first child with dp's surname, second with mine. Lots of raised eyebrows! But what will happen if we have a third???

"As others have said, traditionally it would be the fathers surname that is passed on"

Actually others have said the opposite! Traditionally it's the mother's surname that is passed on

DS was born before DH and I married and we have him DH's surname.
We are now married and I took DH's name and I like it that we all have the same name and it makes me feel more like a family.

I know it's not particularly feminist of me, but I have no attachment to my surname really, DH wouldn't have taken it and I like it DH's surname as it is quite unusual.

But some people are the complete opposite and want to keep their name, feel that DC should have the mother's name in case of a future split etc etc.

Each to their own.

As others have said, traditionally it would be the fathers surname that is passed on, the same as after marriage the woman takes her husband's name.
However I think it should be a personal choice, and that there is no right or wrong, just whatever you feel most comfortable with doing

And it really confounds me why unmarried women give their children their DP's surname without really thinking it through. why is that? They are as much the mans children as the woman's so what's the problem with choosing to give them their fathers surname? why should a woman's relationship status dictate the name of her children?

I note you didn't agree with women changing their name through marriage. I changed mine, and it has becaome my identify to the point where I would never change it. It's my family name, the family my husband and I created. If I had a nicer mane than him I may have asked him to change, but his sounded better.

DD has my surname. I've always been a single mum and I knew from the offset her dad wasn't going to be particularity involved. There really was no question about whose surname she was given. He wanted her to have his, but I said no. It wasn't up for debate. I've raised her, not him. Had we been together as a couple, I still would've pushed for my surname only.

I would never surrender my surname. It's part of my identity and nothing will ever make me give it up. I'm amazed at the amount of women who change their names just because they get married And it really confounds me why unmarried women give their children their DP's surname without really thinking it through.

Don't misunderstand, I get that for a lot of people they dislike their surname or maybe want to distance themselves from a family name for whatever reason, but in general I just see the whole 'taking his name' thing as such a draconian practice.

It's not a given but it's whatever you and your DP decide. My recently newborn DD was given DPs surname but that's because it's what we both wanted. We intend on marrying someday and I will take DPs surname (I didn't with my previous exh). Some people mightn't approve but it's none of their business really.

(When I say exotic I mean unusual in spelling, it's French)

Namechange - it was his decision. I didn't mind either way, he suggested it and I thought it was a nice idea. I may have not explained well, but I was quite happy to change my own surname (I am quite traditional and was very young when I married) and we didn't ever discuss whether I wanted to keep my name as I just automatically planned to change it. I didn't want a double barrelled name (partly because it would have sounded strange with both names together, a bit like a famous actor's unusual double barrelled surname with one letter different, which would have sounded like we were emulating that) and actually I now know that DH would have agreed to change his name if I had suggested it because we have discussed it since. On reflection, I would still have taken his name. It's nicer with my first name (my maiden name and first name are both one syllable, my married name is longer and quite exotic).

I am forever being asked to explain why DS has a different surname from his brothers and parents, but most people think the story behind it is quite sweet, rather than weird!

Why? Because I haven't seen the same same for the mum's surname. one choice is the default choice. It should be a personal choice, nothing should be default.

ive seen so many threads being like 'our DC will have their dad's surname'. Just why? well why not? I mean it's personal choice isn't it. After all, they are his kids too

"my DH used his speech to announce that he wanted our DS to keep my maiden name as his surname to carry on the family name and it was a wedding present of sorts to my parents for the help and support they had given us"

That is so weird... the way you describe it, it sounds as if it was your DH's decision (not a joint one) and something he saw as a massive favour to your parents Surely it's nkrmal for your son to keep the name he was born with... what would have been more respectful to your parents is you keeping your name and your DH changing his name to yours, or everyone double-barrelling.

My DS has my maiden name. We weren't married when he was born and he is likely to be my parents' only DGC so when we married, my DH used his speech to announce that he wanted our DS to keep my maiden name as his surname to carry on the family name and it was a wedding present of sorts to my parents for the help and support they had given us. We always said to our DS he can change it to our surname if he wants when he is an adult but he likes his name. The only time it's caused a problem was when we went to the US and they couldn't understand that he was our child and had a different name - they kept asking if DH was his stepdad.

My daughter have my surname because we are not married and I deal with most kid stuff so made sense at the time. Partner is totally happy with it and doesn't give it a thought. And childishly it has irritated his mum no end

Of course that's not always the case! Children being given the dad's surname 'just because' is really sad tbh. The same goes for wives taking their husbands surname. Why on earth would anyone do that? Unless his surname was beautiful.

I've seen so many threads being like 'our DC will have their dad's surname'. Just why?

What Purple and Hardcore said.

Marriage does not automatically equal woman taking husband's name.

"Traditionally", children of unmarried parents have their mother's name.

I was born to unmarried parents in the 80s and they gave me both their surnames.

It seems they were more egalitarian than many people today!

Of course people are entitled to make whatever choice they like, but it saddens me when people don't even consider the options.

All mine have my maiden surname
DS1 - ex's (to whom I was never married) child - my name
DS2 - DH's born prior to our marriage - my name
DS3 - DH's - the only one born in 'wedlock' - my name
Given the supposed rise of equality, I find it astounding how the vast majority of kids don't have the mum's name.

we have double barrelled it. My name - dad's name (sounded best that way)

But do not be duped into thinking that it is traditional for a child to take their father's surname. It is traditional for children to take their mother's surname. If she is unmarried, that will be her maiden name. If she is married, traditionally, it would be her husband's surname, but now also hers.