Kids last names

[NamingmaBabbies]

Getting married, keeping our last names, discussing last names for kids.

I’m perfectly happy for the kids to double barrel our last names. The names are both short and work well together. However, if they only get one last name, it’s going to be mine, as I’m doing all the heavy lifting. The idea of carrying and giving birth to a child and then giving them someone else’s last name doesn’t appeal to me in the slightest.

He doesn’t want to double barrel (he’s English, I’m not, and it would appear that a lot of English people have hang ups about double barrelling?), but would be sad if any future kids don’t have his name. I’m of the opinion that I’d be sad if they didn’t have my name, I’ve offered a sensible solution (double barrelling) and if he refuses that then he’s creating his own sadness.

He’s an otherwise reasonable feminist man. We had this conversation, in abstract, when we first started dating. And he was totally in agreement with me, at the time. Now that things are getting ‘real’, as it were, he’s rather less happy.

YABU: kids should have his name because…please give me your reasons.

YANBU: his name isn’t more important than yours. Double barrel or go with your name.

@OnlyAFleshWound

I am not too bothered, so happy for the child to have my name as a middle name prior to his surname, so that I am represented there. I would not give it his surname and not mine at all given that I will never share that name.

If I were you, based on many years of reading this site as well as many friends/family in real life, I would do it the other way round. His name as a middle name, yours as the surname. It's the default anyway.

This.

I’m not arguing to keep all the ancestors names in perpetuity. I’m arguing that a person’s surname is their surname. Once you name a child A-B, then that is the name, A-B. Breaking it up is no different than creating a new name out of pieces of a name. So taking Smith-Jones and Davies-walker and naming a child Smith-Davies is the same as Davies and Walker giving their child the surname Davker.

Yes, both are options, both both create a completely new surname by amalgamating pieces of an existing surname.

@OnlyAFleshWound

I am not too bothered, so happy for the child to have my name as a middle name prior to his surname, so that I am represented there. I would not give it his surname and not mine at all given that I will never share that name.

If I were you, based on many years of reading this site as well as many friends/family in real life, I would do it the other way round. His name as a middle name, yours as the surname. It's the default anyway.

Echoing this. Especially since he has shown he refuses to compromise but hasn't even got a reason.

@Blossom64265

I’m not arguing to keep all the ancestors names in perpetuity. I’m arguing that a person’s surname is their surname. Once you name a child A-B, then that is the name, A-B. Breaking it up is no different than creating a new name out of pieces of a name. So taking Smith-Jones and Davies-walker and naming a child Smith-Davies is the same as Davies and Walker giving their child the surname Davker. Yes, both are options, both both create a completely new surname by amalgamating pieces of an existing surname.

I disagree and I’ve said why. I am not trying to convince you to do anything, so I have no idea why you’re still arguing about this. I think I shall leave you to it.

@Blossom64265

I’m not arguing to keep all the ancestors names in perpetuity. I’m arguing that a person’s surname is their surname. Once you name a child A-B, then that is the name, A-B. Breaking it up is no different than creating a new name out of pieces of a name. So taking Smith-Jones and Davies-walker and naming a child Smith-Davies is the same as Davies and Walker giving their child the surname Davker. Yes, both are options, both both create a completely new surname by amalgamating pieces of an existing surname.

But there's no reason why just because one generation chooses to double-barrel the next will too?

I don't think anyone would consider double-barrelling 2 double-barrel names. If that was your situation and you wanted to combine the names somehow, you'd just sort it out with your partner wouldn't you?

His name is not more important than yours I agree. But also yours is not more important than his. This isn't name top trumps.

My stepson's surname is double barrelled because his parents were not together when he was born. And they're not easy names either. The biggest issue is how ridiculously lengthy the name is. There is a certain British stereotype about double barrelled names but honestly who the fuck cares.

I do need to drop out. It comes down to the acknowledgment of a complete name belonging to an individual and the critical importance of recognizing that those full names belong to women from birth. When people can’t see that the implications of choices across generations, it feels like a feminist failure. There have been so many of those lately it’s getting harder to stay silent even about the trivial ones, but getting frustrated with the generation behind me isn’t productive.

We aren't married yet and when we are I won't change my name.

I told DP that I was happy to double barrel or DD would have my name. He was happy to double barrel her name. I thought he might have an issue but his reasoning was "you're giving birth to her why wouldn't she have your name?" which was the argument I was gearing up to make. Took the wind out of my sails a bit to be honest.

@Zwellers

His name is not more important than yours I agree. But also yours is not more important than his. This isn't name top trumps.

As the person carrying the child and their primary caretaker, I think my name is more important. So, I disagree with you about that.

I think our feelings are equally important, however. Which is why I’ve suggested double barrelling. He hasn’t suggested any compromise.

[quote roarfeckingroarr]@luckylavender if you mean the last surname is the more important one of two double barrelled names, then one of us has to have it. I think that as I went through the physical risks of pregnancy and birth, I was and still am the primary carer (breast fed, reduced my working hours), that if one of us has to have more weighting then it's going to be me. Fortunately DP agrees, and as his name is important to him too our child has both, with mine at the end[/quote]
Depends on how we all define heavy lifting. If you reducing your hours means that more financial responsibility falls on his shoulders that could be a consideration too. And being able to carry a child is a privilege, denied to men.

You would both like to give your kids your last names. Your willing to compromise, he's not. YANBU.

@luckylavender Neither my partner nor I consider carrying or birthing a child to be a privilege. It’s hard work, fucking painful and something I’m willing to suffer through so that we can have kids. He isn’t sad about not having to do this, as I suspect very few men are.

Like many families in the 21st century, we will continue to be a two income family. We earn similar amounts and the financial responsibility rests squarely on both sets of our shoulders. However, as I am the one with uterus and the breasts, the primary responsibility of keeping any child alive and literally creating its sustenance with my body will fall to me.

That is how I define ‘heavy lifting’.

Totally either your name or double barrelled.

My friends daughter split with her partner while pregnant and he’s had zero contact with her or baby since they split.

She still gave baby his surname

I know that’s an entirely different situation to yours but it really does amaze me that generations of women still confirm to baby having the fathers surname even if not married or not together!

You’ve offered a sensible solution which he’s rejected so crack on with what you’ve suggested otherwise.

@Bofthebang Yeah, there’s lots of kids out there wandering around with the last names of their deadbeat dads. Some of whom they will never meet. I don’t really understand that thought process, but I suppose for some people it’s just ‘what you do’.

[quote NamingmaBabbies]@luckylavender Neither my partner nor I consider carrying or birthing a child to be a privilege. It’s hard work, fucking painful and something I’m willing to suffer through so that we can have kids. He isn’t sad about not having to do this, as I suspect very few men are.

Like many families in the 21st century, we will continue to be a two income family. We earn similar amounts and the financial responsibility rests squarely on both sets of our shoulders. However, as I am the one with uterus and the breasts, the primary responsibility of keeping any child alive and literally creating its sustenance with my body will fall to me.

That is how I define ‘heavy lifting’.[/quote]
I find that a really strange attitude. I've had a child so no need to lecture me. My DH and many I know were very envious of what is undoubtedly a privilege. There is no greater miracle.

@luckylavender I addressed your points about heavy lifting and financial responsibility. If you consider that to be a lecture, that’s really your problem.

Reading your responses on this thread, I think the person with a strange attitude is you, to be honest. You’re saying some very odd things. And, you’re on a site for mothers, nobody needs or has asked for your opinion on the ‘greatest miracle’. But, you do you.

I agree with you: no reason for the child to have only his name, reasons for it to have either yours or both joined. I also think it's good that you're having this conversation now, where any children are only hypothetical. I cannot see that I would ever agree to give a hypothetical child only the surname of its father.

I am, like you, not a 'White British'. I have a double barrelled surname, though this is not the most common practice in my country either (not Iberian of any sort). I have had no trouble with this and I do not follow the argument that this is in some ways 'worse' for the following generation. Yes, certainly the surnames cannot keep being added together ad infinitum, so you will not have Child A-B-C-D-E etc. In fact, in my home country you are capped at two and may not add more; it's possible this is not the case in the UK because I find you very unofficial about naming matters (e.g. my understanding of the deed poll process). But if a child is given only one surname, this opposition to double-barrelled surnames means that this is not 'sustainable' either, since of the parents, one cannot pass it on to the next generation either.

I’m arguing that a person’s surname is their surname. Once you name a child A-B, then that is the name, A-B. Breaking it up is no different than creating a new name out of pieces of a name.

The individual has one surname, in the sense that nobody can have more than one, but if it is a double-barrelled surname, that surname is composed of two distinct surnames. The examples you give are not the same, since the two surnames together are not the same as two syllables of the same surname. They represent different family strands.

I think in some parts of british society they can be a slight unfair social stigma around children that don't have the same name as their father. It's a historical thing to do with snobbery about unmarried parents/absent fathers. Even now the only children I know with their mother's name only happen to the ones with a single mum and dad isnt around at all.

It may be he is worried about being assumed to not be their father or to be an absent father. However he is unreasonable to not see that you've offered a perfectly reasonable compromise.

Can you do something very neutral like draw straws as to what name the kids take, if he doesnt like double barreling?

I’ve done the MN unthinkable and shown him this thread. It led to an interesting convo over dinner - as he’s apparently been thinking about this all day and thought he’d been a dick. Upshot, we’re using both names, no hyphen, no middle name. His first, mine last. We’re both happy and I got an apology.

So, I suppose that’s that. Not the most exciting of updates, but thank you to everyone who weighed in!

@NamingmaBabbies

I’ve done the MN unthinkable and shown him this thread. It led to an interesting convo over dinner - as he’s apparently been thinking about this all day and thought he’d been a dick. Upshot, we’re using both names, no hyphen, no middle name. His first, mine last. We’re both happy and I got an apology.

So, I suppose that’s that. Not the most exciting of updates, but thank you to everyone who weighed in!

Well done OP!

That's great that you have reached a compromise!

We also double barrelled (including husband & I in our case though!).

I didn’t for one second think of taking his name. Didn’t have dad walk me down the aisle or give me away. No way. But I don’t like double barrelling names. And I didn’t much care about surnames matching mine. So I’m the only one with my surname in my family. It’s my name. I grew up with it. I’m keeping it. I’m quite happy that my girls will keep their surname if and when they marry. And I’m happy that my son won’t much care about what his wife chooses to do.

My biggest regret is giving little one her dad's surname. With hindsight I should have seen the red flag of him wanting it so much (why did I allow myself to be so swayed by societal expectations). I loved our stay in hospital where for a week she had my surname. We've split up since and it will potentially cause problems with traveling abroad

If it ya a no from him the kids could have his surname as a middle name that goes on their passports but isn’t double barrelled.
So instead of Suzy Jones- Jellyfish it would be Suzy jones jellyfish but known as Suzy Jellyfish for school etc