AIBU not to want child to have his surname?

[Jess499427]

Hi all

I am pregnant with my first baby, due in June. Me and DH are married but I didn’t take his surname. There were a few reasons (practicality/effort of changing my name, I quite like my name, and I’ve had it my whole life so would feel strange to change it), but the main reason was that DH’s surname is very unusual and when hearing it for the first time, people often laugh.

We have discussed baby names but have got stuck on the surname. DH is keen for baby to have his surname and I am keen for her NOT to have his surname. I feel like it’s unfair to inflict the name (it is quite awful, it’s hard to describe without actually saying what it is) on a brand new person! I have suggested that she could have my name, we could choose a new name, we could all have a new name... but he is adamant.

AIBU? We are both being quite stubborn. Should I give in? One of us will have to!

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.

It wouldn't. Unmarried parents giving the child the father's name rather than the mothers is common enough. Double barrels for both married and unmarried couples are also not unusual, nor is a married couple giving the child the father's name when the mother has kept her own.

For each of these to be as common as they are is a new thing. Since surnames became common in Britain, not that long ago in the grand scheme of things, the tradition has been for the child to have the name of the mother, and most of the time this was the husband's name she took when she married him.

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.

This is wrong. Why are you making pronouncements about areas of law you clearly don't know anything about?

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.

It really, really wouldn't - plenty of kids are in blended families, DP and I have 2 kids together, one with his surname, one with mine.

And as to your courts comment - don't be ridiculous, why on earth would she have to justify wanting her child to have the same name as her?

I know, it's ridiculous. If you think kids should have the man's surname because it's a nice idea, or double barrelled is trashy or whatever, fine, that's a personal call and you're entitled to it. You're not entitled to invent things in support of that personal call.

Double barrel and put his surname first. I made the mistake of putting my surname first with my DC’s and the school only ever use the last surname which is their Dad’s .

outpinked
Dh and I double barrelled. My name is last. So dh is sometimes referred to by my last name. MMMMWHAH! I don’t actually want to be referred to by my last name and Mrs so if I’m giving one I give dhs. Dh gives both.

Posted too soon. I can see that could be annoying for you. I didn’t realise when we did it. The names sounded better this way round.

Time for a few historical FACTS, perhaps, rather than what people would prefer to think about the past:

1. The notion that traditionally a wife's name automatically changed on marriage is simply not true. Even today, in law, the default legal position in England and Wales is that a wife's name stays the same after marriage unless she chooses to change it. See this UK government source: deedpolloffice.com/advice/woman-getting-married

Just think of commonsense past examples - Shakespeare's wife, for instance, was always known as 'Anne Hathaway', not Mrs Shakespeare. And Henry VIII's wives: Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard etc etc. In Scotland even ordinary women kept their own names until well into the 19th cent.

1. When births were first originally registered by the government (in 1837 in England and Wales, later in Scotland) only the baby's first name(s) were used. For centuries before that, surnames could be and often were flexible. By the later 19th cent however, many women did take their husbands' surname and gave it also to their children. That practice still continues, but it is not an ancient tradition, set in stone. deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/birth-registration The same source shows that today, legally speaking, parents can give a baby whatever surname they choose.

1. The idea that in the past most marriages lasted for decades and that there were no (not a term I like) 'broken homes' is not true, either. Nor were past husbands and wives always monogamous (there are reams of records from what were known as 'bastardy courts', and men and women were frequently publicly admonished for what was known as 'fornication'.) Many marriages were cut short by death. Many women died in childbirth; many men died in accidents, many men, women and children died from disease. It was also easy for (usually) a man to desert a family. Widows , widowers and orphans were familiar members of all communities. Stories about wicked step-parents (found throughout early Europe) would not have had their force if the fear of ending up with a nasty step-parent was not a very real one.

I'd like to write a post about the queen, the head of one of the oldest establishments in the world and head of the CofE, not taking her husband's name and giving her children her own surname... but I've got too much to do today and I'm sure Adrienne will have a clever response about how world leaders assume Charles is a fatherless bastard and that's the reason for his poor academic achievements.

OP.... is this a hill you want to die on? Is it worth causing issues in your marriage and having the man you love be unhappy about? Because that's what it comes down to.

You'd be surprised how in years to come, this very issue will still be on his mind, as a time you totally disregarded his view and went full steam ahead. Even if you get your way on this, it really could be the demise of your marriage without you even realising.

My EX SIL did something, basically a major unilateral decision and even though my DB didn't leave her then, 6 years later it was a major factor in his decision to file for divorce. It was the absolute disregard for his view.

Marriage is about compromise. If you hate his surname that much you shouldn't have married him knowing you would have children who may inherit his surname in whole or part of a double barrelled name.

Think about it.

OP.... is this a hill you want to die on?

I'd definitely die on the 'I will argue to the death against my child having the surname Dick/Smellie/Wanklyn' hill.

Is it a hill he wants to die on? Will OP have regrets if the baby have her name? Does her DH care that it might leave her feeling unhappy? Will it play on her mind if he gets his own way?

"Marriage is about compromise". He shouldn't have married her if he wanted an obedient women who didn't express an opinion. Like the male up thread who wouldn't date anyone born after the suffragette movement.

Why is the theme always "be careful what you do or you'll lose your husband" if your husband leaves because you had an opinion, good riddance!

But Sandy you could say the same about the op, is it worth her dh's while getting his way if it makes the woman in his life unhappy? Maybe in years to come it will still be on her mind, causing her unhappiness, and could lead to the demise of their marriage.
Personally I think children should be called after their mother, so many relationships break up and so many children reside with their mum that it just makes more sense imo. Then if a woman remarries and has more children all the siblings have the same name, it's much simpler.
Op, his name is Twitty isn't it?

Yes exactly, when she’s looking at little seven-year-old Emily Titcum-Smellie in the playground, she’ll hardly be like ‘phew, I’m sooooo glad I let THAT one go in the name of patriarchy/faux traditionalism/keeping my man happy. Emily Smith just wouldn’t have been worth it.’

Also the ‘women should be subservient for the good of society, back in them there good ol’ days families were so strong and there was less crime etc’ poster evidently hasn’t read too much history. Or dickens. Or Engels. The idea that there was some halcyon time of everyone (the ladies that is) doing what they were told and then Society was Good is naive to the point of being farcical.

A child is born of 2 parents. It would be fair for the child to have both their surnames

It's not about be careful or you could lose your husband...it's about fairness .

So... you could push through and die on that hill and end up with 50/50 custody and see your child, with your surname half the time.

Then down the line you could very well be battling with the dynamics of a blended family, with another woman having a strong influence in your child's life. Or with your child being treated less favourably by his SM or SF.

If pp think it's worth it, then so be it. It's always wise to think of the worse case scenario in these situations.

Then you'll be on the step parent board in misery.

If your DH was saying the child should have just his surname then I would agree he's being selfish.

Right now you don't want to be associated with his surname and you've decided your child shouldn't either. One parent is not more important than the other.

This isn't about the millions of families who use the father's surname, it's about your marriage.

Honestly, if I hated a boyfriend's name that much, that I didn't want any future child to be linked or associated with it, then I certainly wouldn't proceed to marry him.

Thanks for all the varied view points and hilarious if unfortunate surnames. If anything, it has made me appreciate that DHs name isn’t Titcum!

To those asking if this is a hill I want to die on, well no not particularly. If I was that sure of what to do, I wouldn’t have posted here asking for opinions and probably would’ve decided to register the birth on my own without talking to DH.

However, I don’t want him to:
Feel like I’m more important
Feel like I make all the decisions
Feel like we have an unequal partnership
Resent me

Hence I am trying to find a way forward we can both agree on, and part of that is asking here for your opinions and ideas, as I won’t have thought of everything!

I asked DHs sister about her experience. She said that children did make fun of her name at school and to an extent she still gets shit for it as an adult, especially online.

Interestingly she is in a same sex marriage so if her and her wife had a baby, perhaps they would feel more free to make a choice based on factors other than tradition.

However, I don’t want him to:
Feel like I’m more important
Feel like I make all the decisions
Feel like we have an unequal partnership
Resent me

Yet you are not asking to be 'more important', to make all the decisions, or have a lesser part in this partnership -- you are being eminently reasonable, and offering various options like everyone having a new name etc. If he did in fact resent you for insisting on your wishes being AS important as his are on the issue of what name your child goes through life bearing, then that would make him a bit of a wanker, wouldn't it?

And you say he's a good person...?

Men force their surnames on women and DC mostly, why shouldn't your baby have yours, especially as he's refusing to compromise on all adopting a new name. Its down to you what name you put on the birth certificate, so don't be bullied.

He expects you lose your name (on baby) but he's not prepared to do the same. Well fuck that frankly (as others have said). We don't live in the dark ages anymore or do we and just pretend we dont

But he doesn't mind feeling more important, etc...?

Id put his as a second middle name, so its still there for legal documents but at school etc it would be Emma smith rather than Emma Cox-Smith?? If that makes sense 😂

The part about not wanting him to resent me or feel like I’m more important was more aimed at the posters like Sandy who seemed to think that

A) I’m unilaterally making the decision without consulting him and ‘making myself more important’ tha DH and
B) am somehow starting a chain of events that will lead to the inevitable break down of my marriage

Parthenope and Smotheroffive I agree with you.

DH is a good person and we both don’t want the other to feel like their opinions don’t matter!

One of our daughters (now late 20s) has my name as a surname and my husband's as a second middle name. The other one vice versa. It has never been a problem.

Adrienne

You are spouting utter rubbish. The default as far as the courts go is the mother's surname not the fathers.

Also the latest research, Sheffield University and many others, shows that children from single parent households do no worse than those where the parents are married.

OP please dont saddle your child with an embarrassing surname. They won't thank you for it.

What a crazy thread . OP can you give a clue as to what is wrong with the name - eg. does it rhyme with something rude, or is it just the name itself?

Could you suggest using some letters from your name and some from his to create a new name? Why not? Then he could still keep his nickname, yet it would be a new start for you all!

Just say to him, “You have every right to be proud of your name, but why make the child’s life difficult? Let’s adapt both our names and be done with it.”