Giving baby DPs surname

My ds has my partners last name. We're engaged but are getting married next year. Never crossed my mind for our child to have my last name.

I just said this on another thread too 😊 My DD has my partner's surname because I felt it gave him a lovely connection with her that I didn't need. We talked about it and I came to realise that it meant a lot to him and not much to me. I didn't need to share her name as I am her mother and carried her, birthed and fed her and that was all that mattered to me. My DP had none of that so 🤷 I have had no problems having a different name to her.
Do whatever feels right for the three of you 😊 xxxx

My DC have DP’s surname, mostly I just preferred it tbh. No big reason.

It’s never been a huge issue - occasionally their school or dr called me mrs DP, I just said miss me and that was that.

I’ve never taken them abroad alone, but my mum has, with my DN - so her surname and two lots of D.C. surnames, DD went on holiday with an aunt once and a friends family as a minor (neither of the D.C. are now under 18) no-one ever asked for any letters of authority to take them out of the country.

I’m sure there are plenty of people who regret not giving children their surname, but equally there’ll be plenty who don’t... do what suits you.

My OH and I aren't married don't have any plans to be anytime soon but the thought never even crossed my mind not to give our baby his surname

I'm surprised the question even comes up so often

My surname is my EXH's surname. I've no intention of changing back to my maiden name, nor at this point in time marrying DP (although never say never). Should I therefore give DP's children my Ex's surname???

Speaking objectively, your current surname originally came from your ex, but it is now yours - just as much yours as it is his. Do you consider your current name to represent your own identity or do you feel that, every time you use or are called by your full name, it is within the context of your ex?

Put a simpler way: If you were previously called Sarah Smith and then you married James Jackson, from whom you are now divorced, do you consider every letter you receive bearing the name 'Sarah Jackson' to be intended for and relevant to YOU in your own right or is it basically something for James Jackson's ex-wife, who just so happens to be you? "Here's an electricity bill for JJ's ex-wife; here's a letter from the council about bin collections in my street for JJ's ex-wife; here's a birthday card from my Mum for JJ's ex-wife" ?

If the name now fully identifies and represents you in all areas pertaining to you as an individual, why would it be any different for your child? Where the name originally came from is just a quirk of history now - just as your original name most probably came from your GGGGGGGF, whom you never even met or knew; but you don't reject it or its status as your own name on that basis.

Just hopping on this wagon with a question for those who are so adamant that a baby of unmarried parents should have the Mums surname :

My surname is my EXH's surname. I've no intention of changing back to my maiden name, nor at this point in time marrying DP (although never say never). Should I therefore give DP's children my Ex's surname???

I know someone who changed her name by deed poll when pregnant to have same name as her partner /baby.

Tragic. Gave up her identity for none of the legal benefits.

to me marriage is just a piece of paper

Yes, most important legal documents tend to be on paper alright.

Property deeds.
Employment contracts.

A marriage cert is a very important piece of paper that gives you certain legal and financial protection in the event of a relationship ending.

You wouldn’t write a cheque for a house without receiving the deeds.

I know someone who changed her name by deed poll when pregnant to have same name as her partner /baby.

I'd also think about the financial side of things if your not married. Especially if your going to be a sahp/do the lions share of parenting and your career prospects are reduced.

You can change from the mothers surname to the fathers. The reverse cannot happen.

A birth certificate showing a child registered with a father's surname cannot be changed.
It is vital that mothers know this. It absolutely cannot be changed.
When you are an adult you can call yourself what you like by changing your name via deedpoll. Your birth certificate will remain unchanged.

[quote theresaplaceforus]@FlowerPig I’m pregnant at the moment - 36 weeks and my daughter will have my surname because we are not married. No matter how strong the relationship is, we aren’t married so the children will have my surname. If we marry we will all change our names. Simple.[/quote]
Only your partner would need to change their name, surely?!

@FlowerPig I’m pregnant at the moment - 36 weeks and my daughter will have my surname because we are not married. No matter how strong the relationship is, we aren’t married so the children will have my surname. If we marry we will all change our names. Simple.

If you give it dad's surname you can't change it

You can with permission.

It's perfectly possible to use different surnames in different contexts, e.g. I use my married name for everything except for work, where I use my maiden name still (for continuity more than anything).

I personally like the idea of everyone in our nuclear family using the same surname, so my kids will use my married name, but I don't think this is essential at all. Just give them whatever bags you like.

I would give the baby your surname.
If you give it dad's surname you can't change it. Realistically the chances of an unmarried couples staying together forever are slim. By the time a child is 14 the chances of its parents still being together are less than 50%, this percentage is higher amongst unmarried parents. Lots of those parents go on to have other children, often giving the next child the new dad's name. I wouldn't like to be in this situation so if rather all the dcs had my name.

So I hated my maiden name (my fathers surname which noone particularly likes including my father) and my husband had a great surname so it was a no brainer to take it when we got married. I did make it very clear that had it been the other way around, I would not be giving up my name so easily. I felt strongly about having the same name as my children but it was still a discussion between my husband and i and not just assumed that i would give up my name.

I also come from divorced parents. While it was useful when we were younger that my mum had the same name as me and my sister (she took my fathers surname when they married), we have both since married and taken our husbands names which means my mum is left with this awful surname which neither of her grown children now have.

He's an ex now but a friend and have no problems with us having different surnames.

My son has my surname as his middle name and his father's as his surname. We're also engaged but not married. I'm very happy with the name arrangement. It would be a mouthful for our son to say both!

Also the traditional purpose of an engagement seems to have shifted!

When we were engaged, 24 years ago, we encountered people who were really surprised - to the point of disbelief - when they learned that our being engaged actually meant that we were committed to marriage (ASAP after graduating). To them, you were either engaged (i.e. had been dating for a while and had no immediate plans to break up) or you were engaged to be married. We, in turn, were surprised that there was such a thing as being engaged without the clear intention/commitment to marrying. It would be pretty much like telling people you're pregnant and having a baby - you expect the single word to naturally convey the whole concept....

Tradition has always dictated that children take their mother's name; it's just that tradition has also dictated that couples marry before having children and also that wives take their husbands' surnames. If a traditionally-married woman who has taken her husband's surname subsequently has a baby, the baby is named after their mum - it just so happens that their dad also has the same surname. He was the source of their mother's current surname, but she is the source of theirs.

Where parents are not married, the law gives fathers no naming rights at all. In accordance with the law, registry offices will allow any of the following to legally register (and thus officially name) a baby:

A. The mother on her own;

B. The mother's husband on his own (whether or not he is the baby's father and/or shares the surname he legally declares to be given to the baby);

C. The mother accompanied by her husband - with both considered to have equal agency;

D. The mother accompanied by her partner/boyfriend - with her considered to have sole agency but with him allowed to be present and agree on name/registration details as a courtesy extended to him by the mother, who is always in the 'driving seat' with all decisions and has sole right to rule on all names/birth details, should her partner wish (unsuccessfully) to state/decide anything differently.

Essentially, the law considers a child to automatically be his/her mother's child (as biology obviously dictates) if she is unmarried; and if she is married, the law automatically extends this right equally to her husband.

If you are set on waiting, could you give baby your name and then change both of your names, yours & baby's, once married.

Screw that! Why should OP have the hassle. If they all want the same name he can change his name!

@allhappeningatonce if you want security (financial) before your baby arrives sign the contract. That is the important bit, not the 'big day'. A celebration could come later.

If you are set on waiting, could you give baby your name and then change both of your names, yours & baby's, once married.