Giving a baby my surname.

[potentiallyoutting]

I quite like my surname as it’s unique however it’s the name of my mums former husband (she wanted me to have the same name as her and my older sisters) - they’re now married and taken on their husbands names and my mum is getting married next year. My biological dad rarely popped into my life as a child and had zero relationship with him.

I’m now pregnant and not marrying my partner anytime soon (he doesn’t believe in it and I’m meh about it - I have my own property and income so I don’t particularly want to loose that if things go sour).

Now the baby I want to have my surname too but I feel strange giving it my family name when really it isn’t my name. I’ve always wanted to change my surname to my great-mother’s first name (great inspirational lady) as I feel she contributed a lot more than any forefathers.

My partner isn’t keen especially if we have a boy ‘William Margaret-Jones’ and while it’s non debatable not having the same name as a my child if push comes to shove I’d rather baby just have my name.

Op, are you proposing to double barrel your baby's name, so William Margaret- Jones with you changing your name to Ms Margaret and your dp Mr Jones? And he doesn't like the female name? I think without the hyphen it will sound like a girls middle name. You could put his name first? So William Jones Margaret? What's the name you're wanting to take? As pp says some girls names are surnames anyway, Rose for example.

Give the baby your name. If you like your current name, don't change it. It is not your biological father's name, it is your name.

I wouldn't overcomplicate things personally.

but I feel strange giving it my family name when really it isn’t my name.

Have you had it all your life? Or as long as you can remember?

It is your name. It doesn’t make any difference who else shares it or how you came across it: it’s yours and there’s no reason not to pass it on to your baby.

The hospital will automatically call your child 'Baby Outing' because a child automatically gets its mother's name (and it is your name, names don't just belong to men). You can then change it to what you want when you register it but your partner has no right to name your child, particularly if he won't marry you. Agree with PPs, go back to work FT as soon as you can after the birth so you don't lose earning potential. Where do you live, in your property or his?

particularly if he won't marry you
That's not how I read the op, or at least not the whole picture, she says she is only meh about it and doesn't want to risk her income and property if they divorce. So not that he won't marry her, more that they won't be getting married. He has no right to name the child but if they're planning to be a family then totally disregarding his opinion seems unfair, double barrelling would seem fair, hence why I asked if it's the order of the names he has a problem with.

The issue you have here, I think, is one of societal expectation and tedious conformism. It's becoming more commonplace nowadays for women to retain their own identities on marriage. But, if you're one of the women who have done this, I'm betting my boots you've got a few stories to tell about rude people disrespecting that decision, splitting hairs when filling out forms over Ms/Mrs/Miss that are all abbreviations for the same word (ie meaningless) when men are served perfectly well by the generic 'Mr'. Or maybe you have in-laws who persist in addressing you as Mrs Hisname, and the kids as Hisname. Whichever it is, it gets old really quickly. But the reason it happens is that in the UK it's a societal expectation that a woman's identity becomes an adjunct to her husband's on marriage.

The same goes for naming children. There's almost a fixation with family members all having the same name (and it's one DC's primary school have bought into wholesale). Our agreement was that any boys we had would take his name and girls mine. If we'd had a boy and a girl, we'd have had - SHOCK HORROR! - two kids with different family names, and a different name from at least one of their parents. World stops turning - cannot compute.

It's a fat, gigantic crock of (yes, patriarchal) BS.

OP: call your child precisely what you want. If you've carried and birthed that child and you are not married, it's entirely your call. No matter what you might be told to the contrary.

Men can’t have it all their way! If they don’t want to marry fine but child has mothers name and mother should make NO concessions 50 50 childcare no compromise of earning potential man does 50 % at least of drudge

Absolutely NO way would my child have the name of his father if we weren't married.

A complete no brainer.

Same OP with the childcare, DO NOT reducef your hours.

Too many shit shows on MN of women being utterly taken advantage of by pulling back on their careers and being totaly disadvantaged.

You can give your child any surname you like - it doesn’t have to be the same as either of you. I don’t see why you would give them their fathers surname only whether married or not. It’s a very outdated concept.

Dds have both our surnames (No hyphen) and when they’re older they can choose to use both or either or neither.

Also the “won’t let him have the child with his surname unless married” brigade are also living in the past. Why does it matter if op is married or not? Enough re all the “don’t give up your job if he won’t marry you, etc” too - op has already explained she is the financially stronger party and will only be disadvantaged by marriage.

It’s also not “part of marriage” for a child to “automatically” have their fathers name. Children get the Surname they are registered with which can be my name.

Thanks for all your comments as it’s gave me a lot to ponder on.

He’s set that the baby will have his name as he’s the only male —very popular British surname—.

We’ve had a lot of words that I don’t want a different name to my child for things mentioned above.

I understand as a family unit that we should probably double barrel as he is involved and not an arsehole (if we broke up and he was an arse before the baby is born it would have my name only).

I think it should br whatever makes the child's life easier, these days. If taking an unmarried mum's name would leave it with a name like ...o don't know. ..Fotheringay-Lopatowski...when it's going to be brought up in some small town...and the dad's name is...say...Perkins..what would be kinder to the child?

People set far too much store by surnames IMO.
The way that men go on about 'carrying on the name' when they are called like 'Smithers' or something.....is almost amusing. Or when Americans get really excited about a surname that there 3x grandad had....
Never mind the other '32 great great grandparents eh?

I have considerable experience of this.

For complicated reasons, my surname is a woman’s name, NOT traditionally used as a surname. Example would be my legal name is Jane Elizabeth, or Ms Elizabeth.

Married, kept my name, had a baby boy.

Calling baby E.g. Bob Elizabeth was an option, but wanted dad’s name to have equal importance.

Baby ended up as E.g. Bob Jones-Elizabeth after much debate. I could’ve just called him Bob Jones, but neither me nor husband wanted that.

Tbh it’s going to be a pain for him and us explaining “Jones-Elizabeth, yes double barrelled, yes like the girls’ name” every time but I’m hoping to teach him to own it.

Id change your name, as you intend and then give the child your name. If you give the baby your partner's name, it cannot be changed.

He’s set that the baby will have his name as he’s the only male —very popular British surname—.

He can be as 'set' as he wants (see, he 'doesn't believe' in marriage), he doesn't get to decide or insist. Funny, he 'doesn't believe' in marriage but still sets store by guff like 'the only male'.

Can you clarify something because it seems to be causing great confusion and shift of focus on here, the 'Margaret-Jones' thing, were you referred to a double-barrelled surname and not potential first or middle names? Because yes, a lot of surnames are typically female names (often names like Shirley, Hilary, Beverly and the like that used to be male names historically), so if that's his other objection, that the child has not only a double-barrelled surname but one that has a 'female' name in it then he's being even more ridiculous.

Just nope. Give the child your name or you all change names or double-barrel.

@LividLaughLovely I've double-barrelled my child's name (married but I kept my own name). Without exception all of his cards come addressed to my husband's name (there was a thread about this the other day). It's very frustrating but I feel like the more people do this and the more we correct them the easier it will be!

How is your surname not really your name? If it's what you're called and have opted to continue being called as an adult, it's yours. However that would also be true of any other name you chose to use, whether that's your grandmother's, one you've made up new or Princess Consuela Banana Hammock.

Anyway, important to be clear that assuming you're in the UK, as you aren't married or planning to be, this is actually 100% your decision. You can choose to listen to him if you want to, but it would be your decision. You would be within your rights to use your surname only and if he disagreed his only recourse would be a court order.

I understand as a family unit that we should probably double barrel as he is involved and not an arsehole

No, why should you? Hundreds of thousands of mothers who are often the only ones really involved at all and are definitely not arseholes don't get to have their own baby have their name every single day and nobody thinks that's unfair, so -?

He’s set that the baby will have his name

He doesn't believe in marriage

He's conveniently decided he 'doesn't believe' in an institution that exists to legally recognise that family unit and give you and his child a whole range of extra financial protections and entitlement to his wage/assets.

It's actually traditional for a baby to carry its mother's surname. When the mother is married and has changed her name to her husband's, then the baby has the husband's name too. Not otherwise.

Tell him that just as he doesn't believe in marriage, you don't believe in the modern invention of the father getting to sack off marriage but still get his surname carried on. No.

Marriage carries on the surname of the only male 'X' - not having a baby.

Give your baby your surname. Don't double barrel.

Sorry but he can follow those thousands of women

I do think double-barrelling is the fairest way to do it, if the names sound ok together and aren't too ridiculously long.

A lot of men refuse to even do that, though, and insist on their surname only

@FizzyGreenWater it’s actually not traditional for children to be named after their mother in the Uk. I was surprised to find quite a few illegitimate children in my family tree. They were all named after the father rather than the mother although the fathers did not seem to have anything to do with them. Luckily we live in more enlightened times now.

Re the “he doesn’t want to protect you by marriage” nonsense- op has already said she would be disadvantaged by marriage. Not all women are desperate to snag a husband for financial security- some are doing better on their own and would be worse off risking their assets on divorce (as op said she was).

Actually it is traditional for women to be named after their mother in the UK. If a child born outside marriage was given the father's surname and not the mother's, that was an exception and not the norm.

A lot of men refuse to even do that, though, and insist on their surname only angry

They cannot force this, though, if they are not married? Can they?

Ah but they don't need to. Women just do it anyway.