to not use his surname for baby

[notenoughtimeagain]

When me and DP met we both discussed our wants for the future. I knew he wanted another child and he knew I wanted to get married, have the big day etc. 2 years down the line and we are pregnant. DP has started to say he doesn't want a big day and has shown no interest in asking me to marry him anytime soon. I feel a little bit like he is getting his own way and I've been tricked. DP has a child from a previous relationship who has his surname. I have two DC who have mine and my ex partners surnames double barrelled. We never married. TBH if I had known what a pain double barrelled names are I would have thought twice. Filling in forms and there is never enough room , searching for appts, prescriptions etc. Both DC tend to just be known as my surname at school as it is easier. Their choice and both me and EXP don't mind as it genuinely is a mouthful of a name and a pain. They use the full name for official stuff obviously.
With the new arrival I am seriously thinking about only using my surname. I really don't want to have a different name to the baby and my experience of double barrelled is not great ( although it wouldn't be quite as long as my other children's). Of course DP will be on the birth certificate but just not using his surname. And if he ever gets around to marrying me we could change babies name to our married name. DP is adamant that we should use his surname, double barrelled as a minimum but preferably just his name. AIBU to want to use just my surname? If he is that traditional he should be marrying me. He surely can't pick and choose the bits he wants to do properly?!

Don't worry Goldwrapped - we put all the legal / financial necessities in place when we bought our house together years ago and we're updating our wills / pension dependencies etc. later this month. We have some assets together and some kept separate. All the type of things that should be done whether married or not.

Long and short of it, there has to be compromise, as there is in every aspect of a relationship.

But why should she do all the compromising?

I didn't say she was. He needs to as well.

It's personal choice OP, me and DP are not married and I chose to give DD his last name. He asked if she could have his surname and I said yes, we are engaged (although we weren't when she was born) so hoped I would have his last name at some point too. Every friend I know with a child has given them the fathers last name I thought it was 'the done thing'
I also don't really find it a hassle having a different last name it's never been an issue. Just at the doctors for instance they sometimes presume and I have to say "prescription for miss X and my daughter miss Y"

If you want your child to have your last name then you'll have to try and compromise with him and hopefully agree on something! Just don't do it because you're angry with him. (Tbh he does sound mean )

And by that I didn't mean YOU will have to compromise, I meant you as a couple

I didn't say she was. He needs to as well.

If he stays unmarried and gets to name his children, what compromise has he made?

At the moment the solution most proposed on this thread is the compromise as follows, which is absolutely not what you said:

OK, we won't get married. I'll accept that compromise when you accept that the baby will have my surname.

I haven't said WHAT she should do, Mrs Hathaway. I merely said what DP and I had done as a compromise and how I feel about my own personal situation.

With regards to the OP, I agree with the solution that is most proposed.

YANBU at all! I went the double-barrelled route with mine and agree it is a PITA. It also sounds a bit pompous, particularly with their traditional English names.

It seems very strange to give your baby a different surname to your own. I wouldn't even bother discussing it, just do it and feign surprise if he is indignant. Don't goad him about the lack of marriage, just point t that of course you want your child to charge the same name.

You know you can propose to him? Then you will get the marriage question answered.

This is why I can't be arsed with men and will probably end up having a child by sperm donor. They piss about, string you along and don't want to commit.

OP, I really don't understand why you think it would be confusing for your DD to use both your surnames. You could give her one of the surnames as a middle name if you think it makes it less confusing.

It sounds like there is a lot of resentment in your relationship . He is willing to compromise by double barreling the name but you aren't. It sounds like you are punishing him because of the wedding.

I was in your position, expecting a baby as I was getting on a bit before getting married. However I made it perfectly clear that the baby would have my surname if we weren't married. Now DH was not happy about that idea. He proposed when I was 6 months pregnant and we married in a register office 26 days before DS was born :)
The following year on the anniversary of our marriage we had a wedding blessing in a church and a proper reception.
I don't believe for a moment that he proposed due to a name. But it helped to be completely clear about it. Frankly no discussion was necessary. No is a complete answer and all that.

This is why I can't be arsed with men and will probably end up having a child by sperm donor. They piss about, string you along and don't want to commit.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Most men aren't like that.

Yes, yes fourormore.

Neither of you should have any more right than the other here and unless you can compromise I see bigger problems coming in your relationship. It does seem like you're using this as leverage. Why not double barrelled? It's not that much of an issue, is it?

I have a double barrelled surname although mine isn't one made up from combining my parents'. It begins with "D' " too. "Surnames are a burden we carry to honour our parents" a teacher once told me.

DP and I have never married, both my kids have my name, as I had no intention of ever changing my name even if we do get married, and I have as much reason as he does to want them to have my name. I don't really see how you can compromise other than the double barrelling, so I'd stick to your guns and use yours.

It's not as straight forward as that. There is case law on mothers who exclude fathers from the naming process.

Seriously? I am curious as to how unmarried fathers can insist on having an input on the child's name (if the mother doesn't want them to) considering that they don't have present when the birth is registered or even named on the birth certificate. Do you have any links?

I too am interested in the "case law" that allegedly exists to force (?) mothers to give babies the father's name, especially is it's not a legal requirement for women to change their name upon marriage.

Given that when parents separate 92% of the children end up living with mum, it makes absolute sense that all children should adopt their mother's surname IMO.

Sounds to my like you are just sulking about your lack of a 'big day'.

If a weeding is really that important to you (and it does sound more like a wedding rather than a marriage you are after) then I suggest that in your next life you insist on that first before you have three kids with two different men who clearly aren't that bothered by marriage and even less by weddings.

Surely the compromise would be that they don't get married (something he wants but OP doesn't) but the baby gets OP's name (something OP wants but he doesn't). A double-barreled name isn't a compromise as OP doesn't want that (and I don't blame her) so it is only something he wants.

It is simple. Child will have whatever surname you have. If you have his surname, the child will also have his surname.

Otherwise the compromise is he gets the child he wanted, he gets to not get married and you get to give the child your name.

I regret giving my kids my exes surname. I do not regret not marrying him. However, being an unmarried mother can leave you at a disadvantage so it is perfectly reasonable to want that security. Pensions, inheritance, marital home etc.

You could compromise and just be married without the big day.

I suspect your man is one helluva lot wiser and more mature than you.
The wedding day does not reflect what the marriage will be like, just because your first wedding was shit, and marriage was shit, it does not mean that shit weddings equal shit marriages.

I really think you need to stop focusing on that big fab day that will be followed by a fab marriage. Any mature woman knows that the wedding day is just a day, a big stressful day. The important thing is the relationship, and the marriage. You wont get a fab marriage by sulking over the wedding. He does not want one. Respect that. But does he want the marriage?

You are coming across like a bit of a bridezilla wannabe to be frank, and perhaps too blunt for comfort.

You honestly dont need a "big day", read all the wedding threads here, it is nothing but angst and agony, not like the fairy tales you see in pink and fluffy american movies. And if you have been a guest at a fab wedding, you man not know the stress and strain that went on prior to this big fab painting of rosy marriage pictures.

Maybe your man will want to marry you, when he realized that being married to him is important to you, that committing to spending the rest of your life with him, is important to you. Not being princess for a day and center of attention in a big fluffy dream of silk.

Honestly, there should be "Bride Experience" parties for sale, along with Paintballing, Flight lessons and "Drive a Ferrari" experience days.

Good luck.

After thought:

The surname of your baby is the least of your worries, but in YOUR position, I would bow down, give the baby his name so he knows you are serious about him, and stop blackmailing him over that wedding day, using your baby and baby's name as a bargaining chip.

YANBU. It will be much simpler to just have your name.

but in YOUR position, I would bow down, give the baby his name so he knows you are serious about him

Wtf? And what exactly is he doing to show he is serious. She's the one having his baby ffs.

Wtf? And what exactly is he doing to show he is serious. She's the one having his baby ffs

Which as a man he is incapable of doing. They conceived it together-he is happy about the baby, he wants it to have his surname. That shows something about how serious he is.

I don't agree with "bowing down" and giving the baby his surname. In this case with the stalemate the only fair compromise is double barrelling or a completely new surname for the baby.