Of course nothing makes us stick with tradition but we cannot say it is unimportant as it has differing values depending on who you speak to. It would be very unusual for a native Brit to oppose the traditional culture in terms of how we name our kids so it obviously is important to us.
We wouldn't expect a typical long standing British family to name a child Kim Yo Pong or call them by their last name first or any other way not related to our cultural norm.
With relation to the OP her DH would like to continue the traditional norm that is important to him and his wider family having been passed on through generations taking pride to continue that. I'm willing to assume that OPs name was taken on by her from her father too so its widely accepted that is the cultural norm to be given a First name and a Surname (being spelled as far back as 14th century as sirname or sirename meaning 'mans name' or 'fathers name')
So we're at a point where the dispute over the name is a largely selfish issue in that OP likes the sound of her name better.
And selfish is normal, its not some evil conjuring we sum up, everyone is selfish, if you aren't there is something wrong with you as its in our nature so lets get over the fact that I'm not judging OP but merely stating what it is.
So then the question is 'does my selfish need surpass that of the fathers and the upset to him and his family that his son and their grandchild has been dissociated with them because the mother thinks her name sounds better?
I believe if there's sound reason for such disassociation; if the father-in-law happens to be a serial child murdering rapist then by all accounts your selfish want to distance the child from that name would indeed surpass any objection were it raised.
In the case as laid out though I don't think its reasonable, its obviously a name DH is proud to own as per his nickname and should be just as proudly owned by your child to be. I'd like to think any encounters with any ridicule even if it were to occur should only serve to indicate the type of moron they aspire not to be. I'm sure you'll give them the tools so overcoming such a situation they dont even feel a bump in the road.
Were it to go as far as the courts which would be ridiculous then were no agreement in place the mother would have to have a good reason for the courts not to name the child in the traditional patriarchal way.
I do hear the argument that some are saying in that why should it be patriarchal norm but I would say that conformity is important when it relates to the personal identity of an individual throughout their life and I just dont see any strong enough arguments of why that should change in favour of the opposite
Should a man not take pride in passing the family name onto his children and who are we to take away something which to many fathers means a great deal to them that their kids are associated to them by name.
I really can't be arsed finding sources because I've had a glass of wine but all of the research i have come across in my professional studies actually suggests that it is not parental separation that causes negative outcomes for children - it is parental conflict. A child's life opportunities and health are more accurately measured by looking at their ACE scores and poverty levels. It is far too simplistic to assert that married parents = successful children.
OK thats very interesting I cant help reading between the lines here though. If a childs happiness and health are more accurately measured by ACE scores and poverty levels (in your words) then it would seem a contradiction to your assertion that recently showed 46% of kids in single mother households were classed as being in poverty compared with just 11% in similar married couple households.