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,?

If blokes want their kids to have their name then they should marry the mothers. If they are married nothing stops them from registering the child themselves. I apparently was going to have my first and middle name the other way round which was my mother's choice. My dad trotted off to registry office and switched them round ( glad he did as I hate my middle name)

Yes, I can’t really disagree with this, I suppose…

No idea, having never done either. But it has nothing to do with the discussion about how this more of a surname thing works. Unless of course the poster thinks we ought to incorporate some kind of objective attachment measuring tool into the surname ranking system she's invented.

I have known this but the mum never took the dads name but still named subsequent children the surname of the oldest child....

But its HER surname, belongs to HER.

that's a really weird thing for your family to think. Especially as brother has gone through one marriage already.

My mum is upset that my cousin took his wife's name because it means his sons don't have her very common maiden name, the one she had for less than 1/3rd of her life. Every time I point out that there is another cousin with the name who had a boy and how weird she's being.

Her married name (also my name) will likely not go further than me and my brother but she has no issue with that.

What a ridiculous hypothetical situation to make comparisons to. If a family take the wife’s surname (which is extremely rare but does happen) it’s taking the wife’s surname. If they take the man’s surname (which is almost always the case) it’s taking the man’s .

Me family are odd. My brother likes to mention that he's the only one in our generation who had "children in wedlock" whilst conveniently forgetting he's the only one to get divorced as well.

It’s not correct to say it’s traditional for children to take their mother’s name . That’s not a fact .

There are lots of reasons. I've had my married name twice as longer as I've had my birth name. I've published with it, I'm known professionally as it. My children have it. If I got divorced, what reason would I have to change my name? What sense would it make?

Can't tell if that was a reply to me or someone else. If me, I was actually talking about if the woman takes the man's name but it's not the one he had at birth. For example if his parents were unmarried then he changed it once they got married. Obviously this is a thing that happens sometimes.

They have her name.

Names do not belong to men by default.

My DC have their dad's name, not mine. It has never been an issue at school (why would it??) or at the airport. If we travel abroad without him I take their birth certificates as a precaution. In over 10 years and multiple trips I've been asked for it once when travelling back to London from Paris. If we split, it wouldn't make sense to me to give any subsequent children I have with another man my ex's name. I don't understand this misogynist argument. If you marry someone and take their name it is exactly that...their name. But no-one forces women to take their husbands name or to not double-barrel. Anyway, if you choose to keep an ex's name after a divorce that's fine. But it's bizarre if, for example, you have kids a decade later and the new baby has a surname belonging to a man their mum was married to years ago. Baby should have mum's maiden name or heaven forbid, their biological father's name. It is even stranger when an unmarried woman gives subsequent children the surname of an ex boyfriend.

Could you imagine if someone high profile like M Markle divorced Harry, had another child with another man and the child's surname was Windsor. The MN vipers nest would out in force calling her outrageous!

In this extremely unlikely situation, it is still taking the man’s name .

The misogynist bit is you claiming the name is always HIS. Stupid too

Can you explain why you think that in the case a woman marries and changes her surname it is not actually her name from that point forward?

Do you therefore think when these women apply for credit cards, or mortgages, or bank accounts and doesn't supply her maiden name that this is fraud? If not, why not?

If someone changes their name by deed poll for other reasons, do you still think their children should be given the mothers previous surname?

Surnames are a link to our past and our ancestors. In this case the children have a surname linked to a man who isn’t even related to them. It is bizarre.

I’m saying it means she has taken her husband’s name. I’m not saying that legally the name isn’t hers. There is more to names than just legalities. And changing your name by deed poll is a completely different scenario , it’s usually not done without good reason.

Absolute rot. I have the same surname as a famous singer, I'm not linked to her in any way.

Given that women have traditionally changed their names on marriage, women's names are NOT linked their families and ancestors, are they?

But you seem to still consider it the mans name. Why?

Im trying to understand why you think of it as the man's name, and not the family name at that point.

Edited to also ask - if the man dies, is she then expected to revert to her maiden name if her having that surname depends on the man?

This happens a lot. It's perhaps not what you would do, but it's not unusual. She'll have her reasons.

Sometimes it's because somone has made a professional name for themselves and they don't want to change it, or she may just want to keep consistency in name for her family.

It's her name now, whether divorced or not. She may also feel associated with her in-laws family, even if she's no longer with her former husband. Children are a very strong bond for some families and this connection can endure even if the marriage doesn't last.

I didn’t change mine. No one is forcing women to change their names . If people really want to change things they should keep their maiden name and give the children their maiden name even if married. I certainly wouldn’t call keeping an ex’s name “sticking it to the patriarchy” or whatever you are implying

No that’s absolutely ridiculous. And totally off the point. You are going off on a tangent here

Could you answer the questions? They are premised on your supposition that the name remains "technically" the man's, and her surname is still her maiden name.

Or do you have multiple definitions on what drives a person surname, based on a variation of whether they are married, single, divorced, widowed, changed via deed poll etc?

I’ve already answered the question.
Several times . I’m not going to interact with you any further on this. Have a nice day