To name all of your children after your ex husband

[Caterpillarhopping]

I made a discovery about someone I've been friends with a couple of years. She has 4 children. I know her through work and we get on well but I've never known the ins and outs of her life. It came up today that she was married to her eldest child's Dad and took his surname so eldest daughter is Katie "Blogs". She went on to have 3 more children each by different men. She retained her married surname and gave that to each of the children. Second child only has the "Blogs" surname, the one after that is double barrelled and the 4th Blogs.

I sort of understand Mums logic, that she kept the same name as the eldest child (& it's absolutely not my business) but Is it not a touch weird to be sporting your ex husbands name 20 years later and have lots of children named after a man that's nothing to do with them,?

In terms of western historical tradition, children most commonly took their mothers last name. In married couples, this was also the father's surname (and in some countries by law the family as a unit had to have one name).

In unmarried couples, the child took the mothers surname most of the time. They might also have a surname that indicated their illegitimate status. Names like Fitzclarence or Fitzroy for children born to very prominent unmarried parents, bastard in itself was a surname but there were cases where the father acknowledge the children and so they received his name.

Nowadays, with more unmarried couples having children its more of a mix between the mother or fathers surname, but Brewtiful isn't wrong that the default was the mothers surname at the point she had the child. Medieval traditions have no bearing on the validity of your choice, but they're not wrong that the most common outcome was for the child to have the mothers name.

Can cite real life examples, such as cases like the Earl of Arundel, King William IV, any medieval register (medieval Scots is available online). The book Ancestral Trails by Mark Herber also documents that in the 17th and 18th century the father's name was rarely recorded on birth certificates for children born out of Wedlock.

Yes - I did wonder about explaining the few royal exceptions with Fitz as a prefix but they didn’t apply to ordinary women’s children.

PS it wasn’t just a medieval tradition to have the mother’s surnames. It was normal until the 1960s.

You think it's odd because society tells us that names only belong to men

It’s. HER. Name.

Doesn't sounds as complicated at my great grandmother.( Who was given her maiden name) After having my gran ( unknown father) she then married and had a couple of kids.( Husbands name) Then she left her husband and shacked up with another guy having 4 more children with him ( 3 survived) These all had his surname and named him as father in their birth certificate.He later did and she actually changed their name and father on the BC to her husbands ( she was still married to him)

The only birth certificate that wasn't changed was a child that had died at a year old

I actually have these certificates in my possession.

And go down a generation. My gran had my 2 uncles with her husband and gave them his nSAme BUT my mum had a different father and was given her father's surname. Thing is she was the middle child. Would've been far easier at school for her having the same name as her mother and brothers

No, I know. I just thought I'd focus on the "tradition" aspect since you already covered the legal aspect of acknowledgment.

I did google. None of this backs up saying that children “traditionally took their mother’s surname “ as a fact. Actually when you google it says in patriarchal societies children “traditionally “ took their fathers surname

But usually the mothers would take the father's surname on marriage so would all be the same anyway

That’s not “taking the mothers surname “

I can’t see anything odd about it. Otherwise she’d give them her father’s name which is equally odd. She must have wanted her kids to have the same name which makes as much sense as anything else.

the whole patriarchal setup of last names is quite strange when you think about it.

Not related but my parents divorced when I was a teenager and my mom went back to her maiden name. I got married and changed my name as it was oddly important to my husband and my father’s last name wasn’t particularly great. When my brother married he and his wife changed their names so now the 4 of us all have totally different names. It’s all pretty meaningless really.

I get why you think it’s odd but it’s her name rather than just his. I’m sure it’s easier got holidays if everyone has the same surname.

Of course it is if she's chosen to take that surname. It's only recently that unmarried mothers gave the kids the father's surname

Me too!😄😄😄

It is giving the children their married shared surname in that case. Which is the father’s name technically. I know someone who got married , didn’t change their name and gave the child their name not the fathers. This is extremely unusual but to me that’s what “taking the mother’s surname is”. Or if the parents are unmarried and the child takes their mother’s surname .

In that case " taking the mother's " surname is usually taking to grandfather's surname

When I got married I didn't change my name as my kids all had my maiden name. If I'd have had a child from that marriage then it would've been my surname same as the others.

How is it the father's name technically, in cases where it is both parents surname? It literally is both the father and the mother's surname.

So many replies inferring a woman only gets to “borrow” her husband’s surname and should give it back after a divorce because it belongs to him. Even if her children have that name and she’d like to have the same name as them

By that logic are women only “borrowing” their father’s surname up until they get married?

Does a woman never get to call anything her own name? Are surnames always on loan from a man?

The name I was born with is my name and always has been my name as far as I’m concerned .

yes it literally is. But to stretch that to saying children “traditionally” always took their mother’s surname based on this is ridiculous. That’s simply not what the “tradition “ is

Could you explain why you think it is "technically the fathers surname"? And not the mothers surname?

The fact remains,the historical default has been that the baby takes the mothers surname at birth - if she changed her surname on being married it's usually that one, if she isn't married the default was then her surname.

So you're saying men's names are a signal of ownership of another human being? His wife, his children. How dare she give 'his' name to a human being he doesn't own.

I.e A woman's name is never her own, it's her father's or her husband's to bestow upon her if he sees fit and to remove again if she displeases or leaves him.

This is the kind of misogynistic tosh that people unthinkingly absorb and which perpetuates the patriarchy.

I think your colleague didn't want everyone in her household to have a different last name and this was the solution. The only way to give all her children her maiden name and change her name back would have involved changing the last name of a child whose parents were married, and I don't know if you can do that if dad doesn't agree.

To me the name I was born with is my name full stop. I’m not “borrowing “ it from anyone. It’s my fathers surname but if I’d been given my mothers maiden name as my surname at birth I would consider that to be my surname .

I don’t think there is anything radically feminist about keeping your ex’s surname.