Giving baby DPs surname

If I had another, I will be giving them my surname. I thought my ex was my forever man.. Now unfortunately my daughter has his surname and I have to jump all sorts of hoops to try and change her surname.

Can I jump on this and ask for advice? I was engaged long before I got pregnant, we were due to marry this summer but corona ruined that 😭 we decided to hold out for the day we planned and that will now be next summer. Baby will be due in a few months so will be about 6 months old when we marry. I fully intend to give it its father's name instead of mine. Am I being daft? I've no reason not to trust him & if I wanted to get married tomorrow he would do it to make me happy. (He'd rather our nice day though too) I still haven't entirely decided yet about my own name after we marry but would it be stupid not to give the baby my name?

I don't know if you are still reading OP, and this is off-topic, but your update about your DP being older and having an older child has chimed with a personal experience. Please discuss with your DP the option of getting a lasting power of attorney so that in the event that there are decisions to be made in the future, for example about care, you are consulted and recognised as his next of kin.

Our kids have DP's surname. We were in a similar situation to you OP when first was born, married for subsequent ones. DP got to give them his surname and I got pretty much free reign to pick the first names. The only time it is annoying is when we travel, I need to take a copy of DC's birth certificates and do often get asked for them at airport security, even within the EU. When you register the birth I advise buying several copies, they are around £4 a copy at the time. We got something like 5 for our first and it has been useful!

@TerribleCustomerCervix yes I do think it’s a privilege for him to share his name and heritage with our daughter.. but it was my decision for her to have his surname, he would of accepted whatever I chose to do. I did not mean it as his privilege equals his rights or decision.

All those woman changing there names or giving there DC there DH have you never considered keeping your names , double barrelling or god forbid giving your DC your name and your DH taking on yours

I had a similar situation, me and my partner are not married and don't have any plans to anytime soon. I gave my son my partners name because even though we see no point in marrying now I know we probably will in the future and I don't want my son to have a different name to us both as I would like to change my name when we do get married. So far it doesn't cause any issues, I'm fine with it.

I’m in exactly your position and my baby will be taking my partner’s name next month simply because I like it much better than my surname! Like you, marriage isn’t meaningful to me and we’re planning a modern, egalitarian civil partnership to take place after Covid, which I feel far more comfortable about for various feminist reasons.

I don’t really see the issue either - we’ll just take documentation if travelling without dad.

My partner and I have been together years longer than loads of married we know so it doesn’t mean we’re more likely to split! Just means they’re more traditional than us :)

Ladedada, you said in your initial post that you believed that using his surname is the father’s privilege.

You can make whatever choices you like for you and your child- I’m a randomer on MN so I’m not really invested.

What I do find annoying is when women take on the physical, mental and financialrisks of a pregnancy and then use twee language to try and explain why they hand over naming rights to the father.

@TerribleCustomerCervix

So it wasn’t a privilege for you.. it was for me, even with all that came with it. If I had the choice who got to carry her again I would choose myself. I got to feel her inside me, I got to nourish her.

Giving the fathers surname wasn’t automatic in my situation or the Ops situation. Why is everyone getting in a huff because that choice is the fathers surname. When doing my family tree pretty much everyone had the fathers surname. I like that. It’s what I wanted for my child. She is no less my child because she doesn’t share my name.

Yeah, it really isn't traditional to give dc the father's surname if you're unmarried - as my family tree can attest! Multiple unmarried mothers from the 1800s onwards, and all the children had the mother's surname, whether the father was on the scene or not.

Ultinately, do what you want to do, but I don't think tradition is a good reason, as it's not actually traditional to give children the father's surname (especially if not married) it's just something some people have started to do a bit more in the last two or three decades.

Personally I would double barrel. I wish that was the default, really. Seems the fairest and easiest option for everyone.

The tradition did not really become "entrenched in the UK " in the 17th cent.

From the 17th cent among women with property in England, the legal institution of 'couverture'* did indeed mean that women had to trade as if they were one legal person with their husband, under the same name, but that did not apply to all women in the UK, and to almost none in Europe. And it was a legal institution, not a symbol of affection or personal commitment.
*oro.open.ac.uk/19216/2/14BC4459.pdf

Outside England but still in the UK, as late as the 19th /early 20th cent cent, Scottish women kept their own names. Even today, 'mother's maiden name' is recorded on many Scottish legal documents, such as death registration.
books.google.co.uk/books?id=cVpuDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT37&lpg=PT37&dq=amy+erickson+surnames&source=bl&ots=NIyYzLHGFl&sig=ACfU3U38zxW190eULS9z7XxSH4g3V5gq7g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5o6bi3ubrAhWfQxUIHdKMDh44FBDoATAHegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=amy%20erickson%20surnames&f=false

This might be interesting:

"Dr Erickson adds that in the early 19th century, England was the only country in Europe where a woman took her husband’s name upon marriage. The tradition of referring to a wife by her husband’s full name, for example Mrs John Dashwood in Austen’s 1811 novel Sense & Sensibility, was to distinguish between multiple Mrs of the same surname within a family."

"Only around 1900 did Miss and Mrs come to take on the meaning we understand today, and it wasn’t long before that fell foul of changing attitudes. Rather than being a recent invention produced by modern notions of political correctness, Ms was proposed as a neutral alternative to Miss and Mrs as early as 1901."

www.thevintagenews.com/2019/02/06/mrs-miss-and-ms/

see also here, re the use of 'Mrs' and 'Miss':
academic.oup.com/hwj/article-abstract/78/1/39/627183?redirectedFrom=PDF
and here:
www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/mistress-miss-mrs-or-ms-untangling-the-shifting-history-of-titles

SIL did this but only because her DP was married and she and PIL don’t want anyone to know that she is a single parent.

My DC have both mine and DH’s names because I tagged his to mine when we married. I didn’t plan to have DC at that stage but it was a no brainer when Idecided did want to have DC.

In your position OP I would suggest both names.

[quote Pegase]@Feminist10101 not sure you can judge how bothered I was given you have no idea of my childhood experiences. Despite the heinous crime of changing to my husband's surname, I will continue fighting what are, for me, bigger feminist battles. Each to their own though. [/quote]
Hey. No odds to me. If you’d never gotten married would you have changed the name ever? If it was a memory of such a horrendous time I would have thought you’d have got shot of it the minute you could, not wait to be rescued by a knight on a white horse. Just logic, I guess.

@Feminist10101 not sure you can judge how bothered I was given you have no idea of my childhood experiences. Despite the heinous crime of changing to my husband's surname, I will continue fighting what are, for me, bigger feminist battles. Each to their own though.

I gave my son a double barrelled surname. I had experienced problems travelling with my daughter. Also... she started saying she wished we had the same surname. It was too late to change it as her father wouldn't allow it, but my son (different father) got both surnames.

Naturally oeople can do as they please and it of no consequence to me.

However I've posted here because it was described as somehow traditional for children to be given an unmarried father's surname and I'd hate for someone to think they are obliged to give the father his due in that way.

To me it's a piece of paper that makes it more difficult and painful to leave if/when you want/need.

OK, but that ship sails once you have a child with someone and the birth certificate becomes that piece of paper.

I wonder, if someone were to tell you that you could sign a single contract which would protect you financially in the event that one of you died, or ensured that you were consulted if your partner were unable to consent to a medical procedure, if you would be less reluctant to sign it. You could see a solicitor and have a complex series of contracts drawn up to give you the equivalent legal protections of marriage, or as a pp has said you could go to the registry office one morning and get married or enter a civil partnership (although make sure you are clear on the distinction). It can be totally unsentimental and you can think of it as a legal process rather like signing for a mortgage. You don’t have to wear a ring, or change your name or title, or tell anyone if you don’t want.

I was engaged to DCs dad when they were born. They have his surname. We have since split up. It has never bothered me, or caused any problems with anything that we don't have the same name.
It seems to upset other people though

The tradition became entrenched in the UK as far back as the 17th century so I disgaree that it is new

But it's NOT an old radition - it's a relatively recent invented one. There is nothing in law, religion or tradition - going back for hundreds if not thousands of years - that says a woman should change her name.

Can woman please stop following old traditions when woman were seen as second class citizens and names must follow the male line....god we are in 2020

This 100%. I didn’t change my name when I got married either and I can’t really fathom why other people do.

Can woman please stop following old traditions when woman were seen as second class citizens and names must follow the male line....god we are in 2020.

My eldest DS has my surname, i havent changed my name in marriage...why would I are should I? And yes I had an abusive father and yes my mother changed her name but it just needs us to stop . Men dont change there surnames and they can have names they dont like too or have shitty parents. I was shocked at female friends sending me congratulations on my marriage to Mr and Mrs and his surname... ...

Just don't go part time or become a SAHM without the legal protection of marriage. If you buy a house make sure your name is on it too.

If you split and aren't married he has to pay child maintenance he has no financial obligation to you. If house and savings are in his name, then you could be left high and dry.

I hate this 'piece of paper' nonsense. It is your legal protection.