Can't agree on baby's surname

If baby doesnt have your name you could struggle travelling without a letter of permission from the dad, there are a lot of ways he can make your life harder. Plus, it’s your baby. You’re having the baby. Why wouldn’t it have your name?

If baby’s dad is really upset he could always change his name to match.

@Greggers2017 nope that’s never been the tradition. Mothers name is default, just most often the mother would be married to the father and have taken his name, so that’s the name that’s then passed to the child via the mother. Children of unmarried mothers have always had mothers name. It’s possible the father might claim the child officially and give them their name later, but it wasn’t super common due to the shame of sex and babies outside marriage. This thing of children of unmarried parents getting the fathers name is a very new invention.

It is not tradition to give a baby mother's surname it has always been the father surname traditionally.

Buffalo is actually right- “tradition” was to give the child its mother’s surname, but since most pregnant women would have been married, they would have used their husbands’ names.

It’s only since more children have been born to parents who aren’t married that this tradition has been misunderstood.

@Greggers2017 maybe read a bit more carefully before calling out a poster

@Greggers2017, no, if you read the thread you'd see that it is traditional to give the baby the mother's surname, which was often the same as the father's if they were married.

@BuffaloCauliflower it is not tradition to give a baby mother's surname it has always been the father surname traditionally.
OP you sound very reasonable and I think using his surname as a middle name is a good compromise.

Give baby your name, as is tradition.

Your name only.

Another vote for your name, it's going to be easier if you both have the same surname for lots of reasons, passport control being one of them. Another one is that some organisations will default to 'Mrs [expartner] surname' when writing to you instead of Ms/Miss your name so if you don't like that idea, use your surname.

Traditionally children were given their mother's surname. Most women were married so it was also the father's surname. Illegitimate children were given their mother's surname.

Your surname. He cannot demand you use his or double barrel it

I gave my DS1 my surname when I wasn't married to his dad (he said we'd get married ) then he left. It makes my life much more annoying having to have documents proving I'm my DS mum for travel etc

DNA means nothing. He'll have PR by being on the BC but doesn't mean that baby needs his name

I actually asked the registrar about this when we register DS1 because I was curious (DH and I have different surnames). She's said that if the parents cannot agree on either first name or surname then the registrar must defer to the mother and he choice would overrule the father's.

No idea if it's a legal thing or just practice where I live, but it seems sensible to me!

I’m married and kept my own surname- dc’s have a very clunky double barrelled surname as a result.

Ever since going through pregnancy, birth, post natal recovery and early motherhood, the entitlement of some men to have their surname automatically used on the basis that they had sex with the mother nine months previously actually enrages me.

Yeah, there's no reason for baby to have his surname. It's baffling how many people do this without a thought...

Actually @YetAnotherSpartacus the tradition was for the baby to take the mothers surname. However traditionally babies came after marriage. At which the mother would take the fathers name.

As there is no marriage the baby should traditionally take the OPs name.

Why don't children have the Mother's maiden name as a middle name when doing the traditional thing of giving them the Father's surname?

I agree that the baby should get your name.
Unless you’re married and have changed your name to have a family surname, why should being the father trump being the mother just because “it’s traditional”?

Your name. If your DC wants to add his surname when they are legally old enough, then so be it.

Your name. DNA has nothing to do with it. You’re not together, even if you were, if you weren’t married the baby gets your name. Your name!

I think using it as a middle name is a good compromise.

Your surname. Fuck him.

Ultimately, you hold all the power with respect to naming your baby as you're not married so you can do what you like. You can only do this if he's not there when you register the birth and thus can not be on the birth certificate though - if he is there he might make a fuss/insist

Why don't you want to double-barrelled the name? Is he an arse?

Sorry, just saw that you’d concluded exactly the same thing!

Maybe his surname could be a second(?) middle name.

Then you and the baby share a surname, but father’s surname still featured in the name and on the certificate.