Surname issue

[roopertbear]

More of a WWYD. Cannot agree on surname for our soon to be born child. Namechanged for this.

DP doesn't believe in marriage- fair enough. We have different surnames.

His surname- Smith- is the same as both his parents, paternal grandfather etc.).

My surname- Jones- is my ex DP's name. I changed it over a decade ago by deedpoll to match my DD. This has been my surname my whole adult life nearly. It's on all my documents and I don't go by my maiden name at all. DD has a very involved father and I can't change her surname. I also don't want to have a different surname to her.

My maiden name (Brown) is my father's name who I am no contact with. My mother has a totally different surname (Green).

I want to double-barrell Smith-Jones. DP wants just Smith. He hates double-barrell so said it can't be both names. I said fine, just Jones then. He is very much against that as it's not my 'real' name and it is essentially another man's name (though aren't they all?). He said if we don't go for Smith, we should go for Brown. But that's not my name and I've no intention to reverting to it. He said we should go for Green then, but it's the same issue. I don't want to have a surname that is not the same (or partly the same in the case of a double barrell) with either of my children, but we totally disagree.

The not getting married is not an issue, although I happily would, but I am not giving my child just DP's name if it's not also partly my surname (I'd become a Smith-Jones if we married- DC would then just be Smith). AIBU? Which name would you pick?

Obviously the baby has mothers surname.

It sounds like marriage wouldn't help this situation.

I can see both of your points. I appreciate that you lived with your first husband's name for some time and it feels like your own but it must irk your new partner to give his child a surname of another man. Personally, I think the whole argument is making a mountain out of a molehill but I have a slack attitude to names and traditions anyway.
Just as a bit of an anecdote, my mother took my father's name so that we can have the same surname. We both hated it. I changed it by deed poll as soon as I turned 18. My mother was devastated because she ended up stuck with her bad decision. This year she changed her surname to her first husband's one... another bizarre choice but OK...
My partner dropped his ridiculous middle name as soon as he turned 18.
My aunt's husband asked his mum why he has a different surname from his sisters and she immediately changed his surname to match. He changed it back as soon as he was old enough to do so.

What I am trying to say, I guess, is that it makes no difference. You child will grow up and make their own decisions about what they want to be known as. It may be Jones, Smith, Brown or Green, double or triple barrel. No point arguing about that now. If it were me in this situation, I would double-barrel and explain to my partner that the kid can make their own decision when they grow up.

THIS WITH BELLS ON!!!

"Doesn't believe in marriage" but does believe in his offspring carrying his name only... hmm. He would also be happy with Brown, your estranged father's name?! What in the hell?

Jones.
If you get married later you could double barrel the child's name later and your own if you so wish.
But if you aren't getting married, no, stick with Jones for now.
It's irrelevant that this is your ex's name because you have been using it for a long time, your DD has the same name and the name has now become your own.

I gave my children their dad’s surname even though we weren’t married because his name is much better than mine. So it can just be down to that.

Double barrelled seems the only true fair way to do this. Your DP is being a knob to be so awkward about it. Lots of children at my kids school had double barrel surnames, it’s no longer only for the very posh.

am i the only one thinking that I agree with the OPs DP 🙈 Jones is the OPs ex husbands name and if I was DP I sure as hell wouldn’t want my DC surname to be my DPs exes name 😂🙄

IT IS THE OP’S NAME.

Jones is the op's name, dc's name and thousands of others as well and only if it's something bizarre like Rumplestiltskin then dp might have a case to complain about it being the ex's.

I hope posters on this thread can see how silly it is to name change and encourage their daughters to keep their birth name. I mean not all women can have names no one can spell, hard to pronounce and the name of their father who they can't stand. What about husbands in the same boat, they're all not desperate to marry so they can change their name.

My flawless default plan would be everyone keep their own surname, daughters take mother's name, sons take father's if the couple are married. If not married all children take mother's. That should be the law when registering unless a special dispensation is granted.

I can see both of your points. I appreciate that you lived with your first husband's name for some time and it feels like your own but it must irk your new partner to give his child a surname of another man. Personally, I think the whole argument is making a mountain out of a molehill but I have a slack attitude to names and traditions anyway.

“Feels like her own”????!!!!

it IS her own.

Why can’t the DP look at his fragile ego and just accept that it is his partner, someone he loves and has chosen to make a baby, ‘s NAME? Her DD’s father should not be part of this decision.

But a mother cannot register the baby with the father’s name on the certificate unless he’s there if they aren’t married. So they will both need to be there and in agreement

Yes she can go on her own and register the baby, but if they’re not married she can’t name him as the father on the certificate, he would have to be present for that. If you’re married one parent can register and name both parents.

I can sort of understand why he doesn't want Jones. That is the surname of your ex and I'd imagine the double barrel is about it using your exs name rather than being double barrelled. Offering your maiden/mother's maiden name shows its not the 'baby will have my name' issue. Its the fact it's your exs family name, that you have taken and embraced that's the issue (even though you see it as your name).

Not sure how you'll sort this so everyone is OK with it.

It doesn't matter where his name came from, he could have got it off a lorry.

It feels controlling to me, like HE “owns” this baby and won’t let it have another man’s surname. I don’t like it. It’s like he’s saying that your name isn’t truly YOURS. Like you said, if you were married it would be different, but you’re not, and that’s his choice. He can’t expect to make all the decisions. Jones-Smith or Jones for sure.

Loads of surnames through history belonged to a man first - the father, then the husband

Now we are owning our names, given at birth unless we want to change them

He can from pick Smith-Jones or Jones. He doesn't get to have it all his way.

I have a friend in exactly the same situation - the youngest child is just Jones. Subsequently she and Mr Smith broke up too so then she was doubly glad.

Jones IS your name. Baby gets your name (as is usual whether the mother is married or not) or both of your names (which would be very generous of you).

This, 100%.

Jones. No question about it.

Yes, you shouted it at everyone multiple times here. Your fixed position is quite clear but I doubt you will convince anyone of it by writing the same phrase in capitals and bold.
The thread asks for opinions and everyone offered theirs so stop acting like you are the gatekeeper of truth here.
Nobody is saying that either party is reasonable and sometimes people make decisions based on emotions which are irrational. Having put myself into her partner's shoes I understand his point of view. Yes, the name IS hers but the story of how she acquired it makes all the difference here. If my partner changed his surname to his first wife's and then insisted our child had it, I would be pretty put out by this proposition. Never mind that the surname is his, it would still leave a sour taste in my mouth.
I assume her partner's problem is exactly that since he agreed to any other family name but her ex's. It's not some kind of patriarchy power play.
The fact that the OP allowed her daughter to have father's name but won't allow the same for the second child just adds to the drama. Maybe you are not aware but men have feelings too and are entitled to express them. Assuming radical positions will do little to solve this conundrum.

Good point.

That's why I mentioned I know adults, mainly men, who changed their last name to that of their step-father as that was the man who parented them and not their biological father.

In my culture, children are usually given the father's name unless the parents aren't amicable at the child's birth. They have the mother's name as a middle or double-barrelled surname if they want them to.

I'd feel weird about my child carrying the name of a previous partner for family tree purposes.

I think the mother and child having different surnames is a bigger deal in white culture because of the stigma of unwed/single mothers. I just don't understand the "we're not married and maybe won't ever be so obviously the baby gets my name". I don't understand changing your name to your exes name so you and your kid have the same surname. Can anyone explain why you'd do this?

The reason places like the NHS attach the baby to the mother through surname etc is because legally, the person who birthed the baby is always a legal parent. The father, even when he is a spouse, can change without a process of adoption. It's to generate the baby's legal identity because you have to use a special system to "add baby" to the mother's identity and generate an identification number (NHS number) as quickly as possible after birth. That's how our population goes up by 1. You need to name that Baby, so "Baby X" is the name given. If the mother is married but has not changed her name in all the right places, she might be Mrs Y, but baby will still be "Baby X" unless the right admin people are available to change that officially on the system.

My point is that it's legal based on who owns the baby. It's not even to do with genetics and certainly nothing to do with the morality of not marrying your pregnant partner. You guys present it like a punishment for not doing the noble thing.

@Appleontherocks I think you mean who "physically birthed the baby "rather than who "owns the baby". You shouldn't own other human beings as they aren't property.

DP doesn't believe in marriage- fair enough.

If you are having DC together, this is fair enough if and only if you both work, and share all the parenting and housekeep 50:50.

If your earning power is in any way impacted by having DC (and for the vast majority of women, their earnings are impacted) then it is v v unreasonable of him to not get married.

Compared to the potential financial inequality, your child's surname while important, is I'm afraid, trivial.

Just sayin.

This is ridiculous. first of all smith jones sounds like a comedy duo and secondly i don’t blame partner for not wanting another man’s name for his child. I don’t know why you need same name for? most places in the world apart from some of europe and north america the woman always keeps her dads name and doesn’t change regardless of getting married or having kids. why the big fuss??

Actually I don't. The idea that the person who physically births the baby automatically becomes the legal parent might not be something that remains as it is. People are already quite surprised that you could be a surrogate for a baby with no genetic relation to you for money and then change your mind and decide to remain the legal parent.

So for the purposes of this discussion, I do mean who owns the baby. Because that's what people end up fighting over in court, essentially.

If/When that changes, the way one "adds baby on the system may also change. You may "add baby" to the people who commissioned the surrogacy instead.