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?

I didn't say it did trump mum. Just that as a teenager she might think there ought to be some connection to her own dad. Rather than none to HER OWN dad while retaining a connection to older sister's dad, regardless of mother using that name connection.

So I would suggest either double barrelled, or my personal suggestion is 'Jones Smith' as non double barrelled but double surname. As in the 5* young showjumper Jodie Hall McAteer after her mother Mandy Hall father Paul McAteer. Meaning she can have both surnames, or should she choose to, opt either way whichever suits, includes mother but doesn't exclude her own father completely.

You and your daughter have the same surname.
I like the option where you change your name to Smith Jones (or Jones Smith) and the new baby is called Smith.
Then you have the same surname as your children, and both father's share a name with their child.
If you marry the father later you keep the name Smith Jones (or Jones Smith) and the children keep their names.
If you marry someone else, you can keep the name that includes the names of your two children or change it to anything else.

But only because she took it from the ex who wouldn’t marry her! Your bold font won’t change the history of her name, in that it is derived from her ex.

Do you suspect that the baby's father will not be a good and close parent to the new one as is the father of your first child?

Oh FFS. Women are allowed to own their names. Wherever it came from.

This 100%. Think your only fair option here is to double barrel, even if your partner doesn't like it. I will add that he sounds awkward as hell.

It is beyond weird to give your baby your existence name.everyobe will think he is rhe sure

OP changed her name by deed poll so it's her legal name. I know it's too late now, but if I was in OP's position (unmarried and doesn't like her given surname) I would've changed my surname to my mum's maiden name by deed poll so dd would be Jones-Green and DS with new man would be Smith-Green.

@roopertbear we aren't married so we double barrelled our dd's surname. It is dad's surname - my surname. Your baby will be known as Baby Jones in the hospital as their name has to match yours so staff can identify which baby belongs to which patient. Had my DP not agreed to double barreling, I would've registered her with just my surname.

No, it’s HER name. FFS, are we still living in a world where women don’t own their own names? Are we still just male property?

She named HERSELF, she didn’t ‘take’ it from her ex, if she took it from anyone, it was her daughter, or are you one of those strange women with dated views around last names and think only men can own a name?

He wants it both ways.

He doesn't believe in marriage but wants the things that come along with it.

Smines.

Jonith.

Tbf OP has given him reason to believe marriage and changing names etc aren't linked in her mind as she has done it before for her ex

This absolutely. OP has shot herself in the foot with her past actions and no reason IMO not to let this child have their dad's name and she can change her name by deed poll again to hyphenate.

Nup, give the baby the same name as yourself and your other child.

If he was all about tradition, he should marry you like you want. He's trying to pick and choose.

It's your body. you and your child are without the legal protection of marriage. your right to choose the name you feel is right.

It makes far more sense for your baby to share a name with her sister and her mother.

Your partner is being V unreasonable. Do not let him control this - stick to your guns. You’re not married and therefore you have control over this. It’s important the baby has your surname (the one you actually use!) and I think you’ll want your children to also share a surname and have that outward link as they grow up as well.

If you want to show willing you can give your child Smith as a middle name or as the first part of his last name but use Jones as the very last name and I suggest you do NOT hyphenate. If you call your child (first name) Smith Jones then you can use Jones alone in future if you want to, if it’s hyphenated that’s not an option.

Given you changed your name last time to have the same name as your first child if your current relationship were ever to falter I can’t imagine you’d want a different surname to your second child. This is one tiny piece of power that you get as an unmarried mother - do what works for you and your children. If your partner tried to change your mind then all the more important that you do what you want to do (and avoid marrying him!) as his attitude indicates selfishness and a lack of empathy.

Men aren’t just unilaterally entitled to pass their surnames on to their offspring. Even if you were married I’d expect him to be more flexible on this than he is currently being, especially as there’s another child to consider. The fact you’re not married means you don’t have to worry.

(I made a different choice to this the first time round and I deeply regret it).

I’m a bit surprised that nobody so far can see his point of view at all.

I can see his point of view all right, but what he apparently can't do is see the OP's.

I haven't taken my husband's name in marriage. We both want our names on the baby. So he's being double-barrelled, because neither of us is pig-headed enough not to accept the only compromise to possibly accommodate both. Neither of us perfectly happy, but neither of us also trying to have it all our own way.

(My husband and I both came from blended families, but for me it means that I don't think names make family, for him, he'd have liked to have a whole family named the same for once in his life. Both valid, and he respects my right to be called what I want.)

I can't believe some of the logic. So if I keep my maiden name. Have a child, give her the maiden name, and get pregnant with a second man's child I need to be deeply concerned that people will think her father is NOT her father if she takes my name. Because everyone will assume she has the same father as my first child. Even though the three of us share a name. Bizarre. I've never ever heard that argument before. How would most people know Jones isn't the name the op was born with.

I can see his point that his child would be taking on your ex's name. That is a bit uncomfortable. But otherwise he has a lot of dictates that he is not willing to compromise on. I'd say both surnames in whatever order or just yours.

This is a bonkers argument. There are lots of things I did with partners I had before getting together with my DH.

He isn’t entitled to any of them just because I did them with others.

I occasionally wonder what's going to happen in a generation or two's time when so many people have double-barrelled surnames that those people are bound to start having children with each other regularly and no doubt encountering the same issues that made their parents double-barrel in the first place. What happens then? Do we live in a world of Smith-Jones-Green-Browns? That's going to cause terrible issues in various areas of administration where the amount of characters available for a surname is finite.

Here ends my pondering

I'm widowed, still using my married name as I dislike my maiden name, currently pregnant, DP also does not believe in marriage, yet I wouldn't dream of giving OUR child my DHs name, it's having it's father's surname.

Of course. By 2222 absolutely everyone will have 24 surnames and passports will be A1 size to fit all the names in.

I was in this position. It is bizarre to give your child the name of a man who has absolutely no connection to her, over the name of her father/maternal family. IMO you're thinking of your own connections and not thinking about the baby's right to their heritage. I can't imagine having the name of my mother's ex!

Or maybe, like in other countries, partners will choose one of each double barrel name to pass on.