To feel :( about new stepmum's surname?

[BoyMeetsWorld]

I've been split from eldest DC's dad since I was pregnant, remarried when DC1 was 18 months to a man he calls Papa. Now have a DC2.

Actually have a very good parenting relationship with ex partner although it's been tough as the relationship itself was abusive and he treated me terribly...that doesn't impact his parenting, he's been very good. He's been in a 3 year relationship and is now getting married - I'm happy for them, she seems nice albeit very young (early 20s). DC1 is happy for them although a little anxious about the implications...Think he's worried they'll have another baby now. Anyway, that's by the by.

Point is...I was v clear when we split that DC1 would retain his dad's surname. Because his Dad has always been his dad, we've never pretended otherwise & he would've been devastated to not be. DC1 has sometimes expressed confusion / upset that he doesn't have same name as me, Papa, his younger sibling....and don't even get me started on having to defend myself taking him on holiday. i hate having to 'prove' I'm his mother.

Now he soon to be stepmother will have the same name as him. Will never have that humiliation or feel that pain. Will have more of a connection in name to him than his own mother does. All because I tried to do the right thing.

AIBU to feel :(

I don't expect it to be any other way really. Just hate the whole surname situation. Perhaps I should have insisted on double-barrelling when he was born but I wasn't married then so his name would have changed multiple times. & with 2 very long surnames it'd sound ridiculous, poor kid.

I'm double barelling my childs name, and keeping my surname when marrying. All three of us will have different surnames to each other. I see no biggie in this myself. The child can keep it double barelled or drop one of the surnames if they want, again no biggie.

Prt that's the most sensible option in my opinion.

the whole surnames system is flipping stupid when a child can end up less 'connected' (in name only) to their own mother than their stepmother.

Yes, it is stupid.

Fortunately it's also completely optional and you can do whatever you want.

So you didn't have to take your ex's surname, or your current husband's.

And you didn't have to give the kids their names either.

I have kept my name (because it's my name) and the kids are double-barrelled (because they're my kids).

... when a child can end up less 'connected' (in name only) to their own mother than their stepmother.

No child has to be disconnected (in name only) from their mother. You ensure this by giving your child/ren YOUR surname. You keep YOUR surname when you marry and/or have children. In the event of a breakup and/or different children with different partners, everybody has the same name as mum. You can also double barrel if both parties are firm about wanting equal surname representation. At least your name will be in there somewhere.

This is a choice you made, OP. It didn't have to be this way. It is not written into law here that women and children must take their husbands/fathers surname. Don't buy into such a sexist tradition in the first place. You only need to look at the sheer volume of 'Getting divorced - want to change the children's names!' type threads on here to see just how many women come to regret their decision later on.

It's a name. A label. I didn't change my name so mine's always been different to my son's. Ex's wife changed her name so she's Mrs Ex and has been for over 30 years. The world didn't end or even tremble on its axis.

Life has taught me that names are just that - names. The meaningful relationship comes from FAR more than that.

My sons have their fathers last name. I reverted back to my maiden name when I divorced and asked the boys what they wanted. They chose to keep the name they had well DS2 missed the point entirely and said he'd like to be called Steven

I have never been asked to prove I am my kids' mother when travelling with passports of different names.

think the whole surnames system is flipping stupid when a child can end up less 'connected' (in name only) to their own mother than their stepmother

Only if a) you choose to see it that way (I wouldn't, as if a name makes any difference to my children being my children? How silly)
and b) you purposefully created that situation. Which you did.

I find it bizarre to be honest.

Get a grip, DD’s Dad assaulted me and has chosen to be absent in her life. She shares her Dads surname (her Dad doesn’t have a monopoly on it because it’s as common as Smith in the country where I live)
but those five letters could not disconnect me from her. I carry a document (don’t live in the U.K.) that states that I am DD’s mother and have sole custody, which takes care of travel but when I have been questioned I don’t see it as my motherhood being challenged but rather, someone is just making a cursory check that DD is ok.

We live in times of separated parents and blended families and having ‘different’ names is a consequence of that. This name thing can be as big, or little as you choose for it to be. Are you seriously trying to say that a few letters connects another woman to your son more than you?

Just remember, it was your choice to give your son a different surname to yours and again, your choice to change your name and give your second child the same name as a biological unrelated man to your son.

I don’t want to be rude but I don’t understand why you didn’t give you child your surname when he was born - surely when you are unmarried it makes so much more sense?

There isn't a surname system. People who want to change their names have to actively do so.

If you live by the patriarchal sword, you die by it. You have a choice to value men's names over women's or not.