Why do children get the father's surname?

Don't know why we do it this way but I like the Spanish system. It is slightly fairer, though still patriarchal.

Everyone in Spain has 2 surnames.

Señor Escudero Rodriguez marries Señora Egea Matos.

They both keep their own names.

Their kids take the first surname of each parent (normaly father´s first, mother´s second);

Escudero Egea.

Alternatively, the viking naming system has always fascinated me. Icelanders still use this I believe. Every child just takes the name of their father and add on a ´son´ or ´daughter´ (dottir) on the end; ie peter´s son=peterson.

nickelbabe I might just do that. DD's names are quite short (thought it only fair as she was getting 4 of them!).

Poor kid, she's also been lumbered with a perfectly serviceable first name that is bizarrely often mispronounced - not because I have given her some ridiculous spelling by the way, but because people don't listen to the basic difference between vowels.

Aaaargh!

that is very annoying.

You can insist on them using both middle names.
however, i think i would insist that her surname is yoursurname DHssurname. it doesn't have to have a hyphen to be a proper surname, and they can't take it off.

When I married DH I kept my own surname. DD is 'Firstname Middlename Mysurname DH's surname'.

We didn't want a double-barrelled surname for her but I wanted my surname in there too. I suppose it's almost like she has 2 surnames without a hyphen, although technically she has 2 middle names and her 'username' is Firstname DHsurname.

This placated me until I realised that willy nilly, places like our GP just miss out her 3rd name (my surname)!! I get prescriptions for Firstname Middlename DHsurname, which surely legally is not my daughter?

DH now tells me this is what usually happens, being a 2 middle name person himself that banks, etc. only acknowledge one middle name. Now he tells me!

V. annoyed. I would have missed out her first middle name if I'd known this was normal practise. Or given her my surname...

I'm not convinced by the Margaret Mead reason - as someone mentioned on the other thread, having the same name doesn't in any way prove paternity. Also it's a bit weird to me that someone needs to have their children walking around with that supposed proof or label/signal. If a man wants his children and everyone else to know he's their true father, surely the best way is to be actively involved in their day-to-day lives, rather than just label them with his name and think 'job done'. That's what makes someone a real parent - the biological connection (or lack of it), while it is obviously important to some people, is to me a private matter, not something that needs to be advertised to the world in general.

I'm a bit inclined to say that the (birth) mother should be the one to choose, since she's the one who did all the work of pregnancy and birth. DP and I will probably just agree something like 'a girl gets his name, a boy gets mine' as neither of us have particularly strong feelings about it. Or since his surname works as a boy's name (and has a couple of feminine forms for a girl) we could use that as a first name, with my surname. This might be a little confusing though...

My choice was to give them his surname for the Margaret Mead reason, I'd given birth to them so they were obviously mine! but it signals they are his too; but we have used my surname as a second middle name (they don't use it often but it's on the birth certificate).

Mine don't. I consented to letting them have their father's as well as mine, but no way would I have gone for them having his surname. I gave birth to them, dammit.

In Germany, the child automatically gets the mum's surname. We had to go through a convoluted process to get a birth certificate with DP's surname and also he had to sign some papers saying he was certain he was DS's Dad and that he would pay maintenance if we split up! Romantic stuff. I can't wait to ditch my surname when I get married - even though its a nice name my father is a total c* and it will be so nice to get a new name. Sorry for language

tradition is a funny thing, isn't it?

but there are other countries where it isn't the done thing for the child to have the dad's surname.

I am married, and I have kept my surname, which means that I would be bloody annoyed if I felt obliged to give my children their dad's surname. espcially as i'll be the one to go through pregnancy, birth, primary feeding etc.

I have checked the law on this, and on the birth certificate you cn give the child any surname you choose.
in fact, it also states that the woman is the one who should choose the name, and the father is not allowed to persuade or force the woman to choose a particular name.
the name on the birth certificate is then the child's legal name, no matter what else happens (you can change it until the child's first birthday except for spelling errors - don't know if that means you're not allowed to correct spelling errors or you're allowed to correct spelling errors whenever you want)

anyway, we've spoken about it, and agreed on a congomlerate surname for the children that is 3 letters his surname and 3 letters mine.
so the child will have a brand new surname.
not double-barrelled, because some systems can't cope with that and the person would end up with the last name on the double as their name.

My dc's have their father's surname because we intend to get married at some point. It has taken us 16 yrs to organise said wedding but maybe one day. Why rush!

The DCs have DH's surname because it's (IMO) much nicer than mine and our names sound silly double-barrelled (one is a noun and one is an adjective). If our names had double-barrelled well then they'd have been double-barrelled, and if I'd been fonder of my last name we might at least have arm-wrestled for it or something, but as it is I didn't want to saddle any children with the name.

I would love to have had my mother's original surname.

My sister's children will be double-barrelled (currently, she's kept her own name and her DH has changed by deed poll to double-barrel both names).

Well, I have my mother's surname, and DS has my surname.

DP's surname is a first name anyway, so DS has that as one of his middle names.

My DD has her father's name, and I have regretted that since almost the day I agreed to it. He buggered off with someone else when she was very small and has hardly seen her since - I have considered changing it to my surname but she is 7 and I think it would upset her to have it changed now.

i live in spain and children take dad´s surname as ´first´ surname and mum´s as ´second´ surname so Jane Smith and John Brown (you don´t take your husbands name when you get married here) would have child Ben Brown Smith. On all official documents and registers both surnames must be used by in day to day life friends would drop the second and call him Ben Brown (but know he was Ben Brown Smith).

All sounds very equal but at the end of the day Ben only passes ´Brown´ onto his kids so the mother´s name still gets lost to the mists of time so really its same shakes.

I'm not married to DP, but we may get round to it one day.
We decided to give DD his surname, mostly because there are other (half) siblings and this way we thought it would help them feel more like a family.

I once went to a lecture by the pioneering anthropologist, Margaret Mead (showing one's age, it's sad). After her talk, one question from the audience was about this topic, and she said she was in favour of children taking their fathers' names. Her rationale was that everyone knows who a child's mother is, but the father might be more questionable. Putting his name on the kid establishes responsibility, in multiple senses.

DD has both of our surnames on her birth certificate but we just use mine for nursery, doctor registration etc.. since DH's is foreign and hard for people to spell.

I do feel very strongly about DD having my name as part of hers, just as I did about keeping my own name on marriage.

Just realised my post doesn't make sense .

I meant that ds has my surname as his surname on his birth certificate even though his father is named on the birth certificate.

You can name them whatever you want. Ds has my surname even though his father's name is on the birth certificate. Absolutely the right thing as the last time ex-p saw ds was the day we registered his birth.

I recently came across a website about naming rules and traditions. One section gives a list of most countries in the world and what rules and traditions occur for not only surnames of children but also women's surnames after marriage. I found it interesting to see the differences between societies.

The link for the website is Modern British Surnames then click on the "World" link at the top of the webpage.

My DD has my surname mainly because I wasn't with her dad and he never requested she take his. I had my ex married surname when she was born and changed it back to my maiden name so that we both had the same surname.

Her paternal gran used to tell her she should have their surname but he then went on and had other DC's so it went quiet.

I'm very proud of her and glad she had my name.