to think my children should have my name, not my husband's

[happiestblonde]

DP and I talking. He is usually a massive feminist, I'm a complete conservative but this seems pretty divisive.

When we get married I will probably keep my own name. He is fine with that. However, when we have DCs he expects them to have his. We cannot do double-barrelled which would be my first choice as our names together would be utterly ridiculous, but seeing as they will belong (for want of a better word) to both of us, and as I will be the one carrying the child, wrecking my body and going through child birth... why on earth should they have his surname!?!

I didn't change my name on marriage and my kids have Dh's surname, with mine as a secind middle name. It's not an ideal solution but I take comfort from the fact that DD will always have my surname because she has it as a christian name, even if she should change her surname on marriage.
Whilst the idea of giving different dcs different surnames seems more equitable, I do wonder how this works for them in practice e.g it wouldn't be obvious at school that they were siblings. That would be a problem at my DC's school.

my ds have got my name rather than my dp because his surname has no relavence to our family situation as it only belongs to an absent father who he hasn't seen since 18 mths. Wheras my dad was a very big part of our lives and of our children and has been more of a father to my dp than his namesake. it shouldn't just be about tradition imo.

Mydadsdaughter, in the example you describe, I agree completely.

We agreed that any boys would have DH's surname and any girls would have mine.

As it is we have two boys, I have a different surname to them all and it hasn't caused a single because nobody actually cares.

Get your DP to change his name to yours if he wants everyone to have the same name.

We changed both our names (by deed poll). We wanted to have the same family name (and now we have a child I'm glad we did, it's lovely to all have the same surname) but neither of us thought that one taking the other's surname was fair. We didn't want to double barrel - just didn't like it.

We took his middle name as a surname and my surname as a middle name.

• He got the advantage of having one of his names as the surname, BUT completely lost his original surname for the name;

• I got to keep my surname in our new name, but lost out on having a name from my side as the surname.

It worked well because of the kind of names we have...he is Scottish, so had a surname name as a middle name (v common up there) - e.g. Hugh Ramsay McDouglas, and my original surname was one that can be a boy's name (e.g. Margery Maureen Henry).

We are now Hugh Henry Ramsay and Margery Henry Ramsay *

That's just our name though, the next generation are just Ramsay, not Henry Ramsay - so maybe that wouldn't work for everyone. But I like that our surname starts with us, and that we both had to change it legally - nothing to do with marriage convention - a completely separate, and equal, piece of commitment to our new family!

*all characters in this post are fictional and bear no relation to real namechanges, thankfully :)

We did what morloth did.

And NursesSunshine has a point.

He is being unreasonable because if his presumption.

You both want the same thing, but instead of discussing it he thinks he wins just because he us the man. That is vvvvv u.

He also needs to stop pretending he is a feminist, what a lie.

My dcs have dh's name. If he had ever presumed that was how it was going to be there's no way they would. He suggested my name, I suggested his. In the end as he is only boy and his father had recently died (with no siblings) came down to his name not being carried on at all.

I don't care for double barrels or invented names, but in the face of any presuming that men's names are more important, they would be back on the table.

As for not being a family if you don't all have the same surname?

So two people with children from previous marriages who marry don't form a family unless all the children take on their name? What about foster children?

What an unpleasant and rude thing to suggest. Not to mention that there are no families in Iceland, Spain, half the bloody world.

I also find it weird to imagine being in a relationship where DH and I sought to gain advantage for ourselves at the expense of the other.

Surely it is more normal to each seek to make sure the name chosen is one that pleases the other person?

A discussion that starts with "I'm happy for our children to have your name", "But why should they have mine, your name is just as nice?" can't really get too fraught.

Of course that demands two people who are kind to each other. Once one person starts laying down demands and putting themselves first then the other person has no option but to fight their corner or be a doormat.

spidookly once again, is talking good sense. Where's the kindness?

Yeah but in OP's case, the kindness will be one-sided. Like if you are the kind of person who is always insisting on paying - you might get a bit if instead of your friend saying "oh no, you always pay, I'LL pay", they always just said "great" and put their wallet away.

YANBU to want to have a proper chat about it, and to remember you have as much say in it as he does. If he is a feminist, he won't let the patriarchal tradition of name-changing help him get his own way at your expense.

What about giving the kids your surname, with his as the middle name? If it works the other way round (as in your last post) then would this be ok?

That's my point Ele

If DH had assumed our children would have his name there is no way they would now. I was happy to name my children after a husband who was happy for them to be named after me. I would not have been prepared to give up naming rights to him just because he assumed he deserved them and I didn't.

OP's DP is not being kind here, he's being selfish and putting himself first.

The only response to that is for the OP to insist that her name is of equal importance.

Or, in fact, given that they are not married yet, of greater importance.

Ultimately she can register the child without him and there's fuck all he can do about it.

Yeah sorry misunderstood your earlier post a bit. :) Good attitude I think.