To be surprised at his reaction?

[CowPatRoberts]

Been with DP a while and earlier we're discussing about what we'd do if we had children, and who's name they'd take. I've always been very clear that if I got married I'd keep my maiden name, it's never really been much of a problem and I thought he understood my point of view.

But today it came up that he thinks if we had children that it's totally non negotiable- they'd take his name. Went on about 'surrendering his identity' and 'destroying his heritage' and honestly I'm a bit about it all. He's almost militant about this, but I don't see why it's unthinkable for him to do it but totally fine for me. Am I nuts?

His argument seems to be based on the face that I have one more brother than he does, but other than that it's just 'the done thing'

Nannybeach " This is a new feminist issue, people never questioned why change your name"

Well. Only if you were born before 1850.... The debate has been around a long time (ref. Lucy Stone)

I'm a woman and I hold these views. I make no apology for not subscribing to these relentless arguments from some woman who think their rights trump that of men. The OP wants her kids to have her surname . Her DP wants the kids to have his surname. This seem a pointless fight to prove nothing. I really can't see this relationship going anywhere.

It's not a maiden name it's a woman's birth name, just like a man's name is his birth name. There is no difference. Why would you give up your name and take someone else's?

I signed Ms btw. Have been Ms Myname since I was 16 and saw no reason to change it.
Marriage isn't about changing a name, it's about making a commitment to each other. If DH wanted to take my name, I had no issue with it, but he was happy to keep his. I don't feel he was any less commited to me than if he'd changed his name

I really don't understand what the fuss is about with refusing to let kids have their father's name

If the name isn't something to be fussed over, then why can't they have the mother's name, a combination of the two names, or a completely new name altogether? What is it that is so special about the man's name?

I'm not talking about tradition. Goat throwing was a tradition until 2002. Fox hunting is also traditional. "But we've always done it" is no reason to carry on anything otherwise we'd all Morris dance, and frankly who wants that? And don't give me evolutionary reasons either. It doesn't happen in all cultures and has not been the same throughout human history, it's actually quite a varied practice. So why is it important that the children have the husband's name? There is no logical reason that isn't tied into patriarchal legal structures.

For many of my horse riding friends, I'm Gabi [Horse's name]. I doubt some of them know my legally given last name. It's funny thinking about how last names have arisen and how they might evolve. I still publish as Dr G. Lan though. Always will.

In general, I would say that the options for giving children surnames are:

1. Give children your name.
2. Give children his name.
3. Double-barrel.
4. Pick a totally different name and all take it.

Obviously, this is assuming you keep your surname - if not, then options 1 and 2 are the same, and option 3 doesn't exist.

There are some compromise solutions too - my dcs have my name as a middle name but his name as a surname - the reason it was that way round was because a) we weren't married so he wanted to feel that dc1 'belonged' to him officially in some way, which I thought was fair enough (we got married later), and b), one factor which surprisingly no-one seems to have mentioned, my surname, though lovely and meaningful to me is a real pain to spell/pronounce and his very common surname was a lot easier to use for everyday purposes. so going for the easier or 'prettier' name may be a factor for you.

Double-barrelling wasn't an option for us, as our surnames are both quite long and it would have been a right mouthful. But that might be another compromise that might work for you??

If you do go for the middle name option, funnily enough one of my dcs has chosen to double-barrel in effect, by using her middle name as a de facto first surname. As she likes it and wanted to signal her closeness to me and my side of the family. :) So even if it's officially a middle name, your dcs may decide otherwise!

That sad, I would have been very, very concerned had my dp, now dh, laid down the law on any matter as important as that without considering my feelings and without us discussing it and making the decision as equals.

It doesn't bode massively well for your future relationship together. Your dp does sound rather controlling at worst and insensitive and casually sexist at best.

My now ex-h felt very strongly about this too. I didn't so much so went along with it. Pisses me RIGHT OFF now that we are divorced though. Currently waiting for him to agree to double barrelling (as per children's request).

Am I missing something? He wants the kids to have his name nothing mentioned of OP so I dont understand where all this feminist property of a man comes from. What's wrong with either parent wanting the kids to have there name? You both have just as much right. You both need to come to a decision before you have kids if your joth too stubborn to compromise don't have kids.

Er superficial reasons for getting married changing your name and having a ring, who got married just for that then!. Its called a Maiden name cos people were actually meant, when I was born prior to 1850, by the way, to be virginal,pure and maidenly when they got married geddit!

But what does all this achieve? Adopting a completely different name, double barrelling, etc. What is it that all this fuss is suppose to achieve and prove? It is to demonstrate what?

While I have kept my maiden name, I just can't see what the fuss is with the refusal to allow kids to have their father's surname. To go as far as adopting a completely new name that has no connection with either of you is just plain bizarre. What ever for?

So a child having their father's surname is akin to the cruelty of goat throwing or some other heinous acts?

This sounds like a fight for the sake of fighting. For that reason this relationship is unlikely to be a happy one.

Blimey nanny, is your name Catweazel by any chance?

The OP wants her kids to have her surname

Where has she said that? I can only see one post from the OP (I have them highlighted) and I cannot see where she's said she wants the children to have her name. She says she wants to keep her name for her and is taken aback by his insistence that any children have his name, but she hasn't insisted that the children have her name.

Indeed! In England until fairly recently you couldn't give a baby its father's name if he wasn't married to its mother, well that's a load of bollocks! You can call your child anything you want. Any forename Any surname. Not a recent change.

Well your typing skills are great for someone over 167 years old

Dd has our names double-barrelled. I would not have registered her with dh's surname only. It seemed natural to us to double-barrel.

Before you all get on your so mighty high horses, my first H tried to kill me, so my oldest 2 kids changed their name because they didnt want to be assocciated with him.

I'm sorry to hear this happened to you but it kind of defeats your argument... if you would have given DC your name in the first place they wouldn't have had to change their name.

What to do people sign in the register after the ceremony
What does the man sign in the register? His own name, the same as before? Why would you think it was ok/normal for the man to do this but imply that it is a really strange/wierd thing for a waoman to use her own actual name to sign something?

I'm going to change my last name so we appear unified and it's easier but deed-polling my surname to become another middle name x

So a child having their father's surname is akin to the cruelty of goat throwing or some other heinous acts?

No, read what I said again. Tradition isn't a reason to keep doing something. Not that all traditions are heinous, simply that tradition isn't a good reason to do anything. Tradition isn't logical or reasoned ergo it's not a reason to keep doing something.

A few years ago a guy got married and took his DW's surname and you should have heard the comments male colleagues made about it, it was disgusting. Whereas when women get married it's practically expected they will change their name. I know so many women who took their partners names when they got married despite detesting them just to avoid this argument. One of them is in an incredibly unequal marriage now where she is expected to do all the housework and when I discussed with her the name she said his family were very misogynistic and she was hoping he wasn't, but he is. I've also got friends who got divorced and then bitterly regretted taking the husband's name and giving it to their children. It all starts with the name OP, the attitude around that can be a window into the future.

Friend of mine allowed her partner to give his surname to their child except it's truly awful. A real humdinger and one that will guarantee he'll be teased a lot, as his Dad was. Dad then goes off with another woman leaving mum and son with different surnames and refuses to let her change son's.

You have to sign a wedding register in your maiden/original name. You're not married till you've signed it, so how could it be your "new" name?

I'm with your husband on this one, sorry.
I'm all get married, share the same surname and all children have the same name too.
I never understand why you'd want to get married, keep your old name and be a separate name to your family. Family in my eyes is one unit.
So seems a strange notion to have a different name from your kids when you're married.

Now now hippyhippy, in these days of equal opportunities both men and women can be idiots.

Ask a married man what he does with his ring after the wedding.

Eh?

Cheese, but I dint think op partner will agree to take her name so that argument doesn't work that way either.