To think that our child should have both our surnames?

[nomoreheels]

I am P with our first child. It's still slightly early days (my 12 week scan is next week) and we have agreed not to do too much "baby planning" until after this. Nevertheless you can't help talking about some things from time to time, and we were having a little jokey talk about baby names.

He then suddenly said: "I'm assuming the baby will have my surname?" to which I said I thought the baby should have both our surnames. He seemed to think this would be awkward and look ridiculous on the birth certificate, cause issues at school etc. He has a real thing about double barrelled names. Ours are fairly normal names and would make a total of four syllables, so not exactly a tongue twister.

He hasn't said no outright, but he wasn't that impressed either. I was surprised he automatically thought this should just happen. He's not hugely traditional in other ways. I found it a bit disrespectful tbh.

(For background, we're engaged, but not yet married as we were focusing on getting P for the last year+. But even when I do get married, I intend to keep my name. I am pretty sure I've told him this, but it's not something you talk about all the time!)

I don't want to have a huge argument about it - frankly there are going to be a million and one choice/parenting issues that come up - but I do believe that a woman's name should be included. Why should people automatically give children the father's surname?

What have other people done? It would really help to have some examples so I can discuss this with him.

At school, double-barrelled names can be a pain for the children to use (and learn to write!)
And as a previous poster asked - what happens when two DB names get together? (And then the third generation?)
I had no problem taking my husband's name, although I also don't see a problem with it being the women's name if that's the preferred choice. I just think it's important that there's a family name, because that's what you are.

"And as a previous poster asked - what happens when two DB names get together? (And then the third generation?)"

I think this has already been answered but if two double barrelled names get together then they can either

a. keep their own names
b. take one of the names
c. choose one from each double barrel and combine those to make a new name.

In the case of children they could do c unless they opt for b when they get married.

Sorry, only read op and this thread has probably moved on alot since but in my opinion, yes, YABU. I take your DPs point completely to be honest and agree with him.

I dont "get" double barrel surnames. I think its a bit silly really, what if your daughter decides she wants to double barrel her childs name and so on. I find it ridiculous. If you both have planned a baby together and are engaged, then you are very committed. Presumably it doesnt matter whos name the baby has.

DH and I werent married when we had dd. She has just DH's surname as she was always going to be both of our daughter regardless. I dont know.

I remember SIL insisting DN got a double barrel surname because (PML) "if she and BIL ever split up, or if BIL died and she met someone else, she wouldnt want new partner to feel awkard about child's name" I..kid..you..not.

(just flicking through)

You see seeker I think its somewhat more romantic or more of a commitment (for some odd reason!).

Also, I couldnt wait to change my name to DH's but I hated my surname, I was the only person I knew with that name as my parent's were divorced and my mother reverted back to her maiden name. I had no contact with my dad or any of his family and they werein another country. My father was an alcoholic, extremely abusive, extremely violent, a horrible person and overall lunatic. I felt this name connected me to him somehow.

Anway, I know this is probably not a typical example but sometimes there are other reasons factored in.

That said, if my father was a lovely man etc.. I still think I would have taken my DH's name anyway.

Tis all about choice really.

"You see seeker I think its somewhat more romantic blush or more of a commitment (for some odd reason!).
"

Well may you blush, barbielovesken!!!!

it's seen as "romantic" for women to subsume or sacrifice themselves in some way for their men. Strangely men don't seem to find it a romantic idea to give up their surnames for their female partner/spouse.

The only reason for this as far as I can see is that playing up to the "old-fashioned" property exchange marriage traditions retains a hold over people, despite the fact that it harks back to a day when most women had little choice over who they were married off to.

If it doesn't matter whose name the baby has, why can't it have nomoreheels' name? It clearly matters to her partner; why can't it matter to her as well? So far the only difference between them is that she would like her name included but is happy for the baby to have his name as well whereas he wants the baby to have his name and his alone with no mention of nomoreheels' name. Why is it nomoreheels who is being unreasonable?