Naming children, I have a revolutionary idea.

[HollyBerryBush]

Lets start off with the fact that I am personally very traditionally orientated with many social aspects.

Some things should be "just so", that is the way of the world and universe and never tampered with (well not in my world)

But!

In this world there is only one thing you can be sure of, a child comes from it's mothers body. If you want to query it's parentage, the mother is never the parent in question. The mother is (usually) the person tasked with upbringing the child.

In the west, why have we not reverted to a matriarchal family name as standard?

disclaimer< I know I'm going to get posts from adoptees, steps, fostered and whole caboodle of funky people who merged their surname to create a new family name.

Matriarchal line, it can't be altered whereas patriarchal can be cuckolded.

Isn't it because traditionally the woman had married and taken her h's name and then the children were given the same surname, rather than that children were by tradition given the father's surname?

I didn't change my surname though I was married to my ds's dad. When our ds was born we gave him his dad's surname as a surname and a surname from my family as a middle name. I avoided my surname for him as I've never liked the name. If it had been a nice name it would have been ds's middle name.

I wouldn't say it's a particularly novel idea, but I agree it makes sense.

From the genealogy point of view, half of my children's ancestry is unknown due to all the unmarried mothers. I'm quite pleased about that. It avoids all those xenophobic who did what to whom grudges that people seem to get into.

jan - I think in England that children would typically take the father's surname before it became totally standard for women to use their husbands' names.

I'm only basing that on my impression from looking at documents, though, I've not checked it up, but it's likely it's that way around because women weren't seen as so much permanent parts of their husbands' families, which children were.

We're not married. My daughter has my surname, and her dad's surname as her second middle name. All other things being equal, it's me who had to.go through pregnancy and birth!

Besides which his surname is incredibly common, and mine is unique.

We did the same, eccentrica. Both of our dc have my surname and their dad's surname as their only middle name. Works for us.

In Portugal and Spain the woman adds the husband's surname to her own.

When they have children, they get both surnames (not double barrelled and not as middle names).

Everyone has an absolute minimum of two surnames, but most people have more. My mother has 6

DD is called:

First Name - Middle Name - My mother's surname - My dad's surname - DH's surname. She has 3 surnames. Causes no end of trouble in the UK but that's the way for us.

It's patriarchal. Women take their husband's surname because they become their husband's 'property' on marriage, hence the tradition of the father of the bride giving her away. When you think about it it's a bizarre concept.

I kept my surname and we tossed a coin for the kids' surnames. I won't say who won. It just felt like the fairest method of deciding the surname.

I agree - I was thinking about this recently but because often marriages break down and the mother ends up looking after the children - and if she reverts to maiden name (or takes on a new husbands name) has a different surname to her children.