HELP DP & I can't agree whose surname for baby

[Scheherezadea]

This keeps leading to big strops between me adn DP. Some outside opinions please??!

I am half iranian, and in Iran it is traditional for women to keep their surname when they get married. Which I like - I would never, ever give up my Iranian surname. From a feminist perspective - I don't see why I should give up my heritage and identity. DP's dad was adopted, his mum & dad are aplit up and he's closest to his mum, but his mum has kept her ex's surname, so really there's no real tie to DP and his name.

We're not married. It'd really, really mean a lot to me for the baby to take my persian name. At first DP was fine with this, but now apparently his dad has decided he wants it to have his surname (which is just a plain english name, a bit like "Thompson"). So now that he's decided that, all of a sudden his family are expecting baby to have his name JUST because he is the man!

I find this very, very offensive - this is the 21st century; what happened to womens rights and equality? Ok we can discuss it, but for the bottom line to be 'it's his because he is the man and authority and master' is horrible. I am an educated, intelligent woman.

Humph. needed that rant too.

Scheherezadea, I agree that you should be able to use your surname if you want to. It is pretty subordinate for all women to lose their surname, when you stop to think about it, unless they are desperate to lose it, then it's a chance for a small transformation! I'm sure he will compromise by the time the baby is born if it means so much to you.

Bronze? I don't know if you will be reading this but I think it's an interesting point you highlighted earlier up the page re: the fact that women used to give their surnames to their children. When exactly did this stop happening in a widespread fashion and why? I can see it in our family tree. Sometimes it's quite helpful because you see a name that is obviously not a first name being used as a middle name and it has enabled me to to find a link to a branch of the family that would have been lost had it not been present. I have friends who have included their maiden names as middle names for their dc so it might be making a comeback.

I can absolutely relate to this. DP and I agreed way before we conceived (our baby is due next week) that hypothetically we'd give our child(ren) a first name from where he's from and my surname. DP's as feminist as me so was/is perfectly happy with this especially as I'm more than happy to give our child a first name from his country/culture (which is maybe the name that more than anything 'defines' them). Perhaps the fact that we're not married makes this easier, but I don't see why that should necessarily be the case. I also know lots of married and non-married people who've given their children the mother's surname (and lots who've gone with the father's surname of course), and why not? I was also quite happy to use DP's surname as a middle name if he wanted. We had a few people, mainly his friends/family, raise their eyebrows when we told them but nothing too bad.

Anyway, part-way through my pregnancy, completely unprompted by DP, I have for some reason decided that we should use both our surnames, not double-barreled, but Spanish/Latin American style one after the other (i.e. first name mysurname hissurname) with mine as the 'principal surname'. I keep wondering whether this is a cop-out and/or setting the poor child up for a lifetime of having to endlessly explain their name, but I teach plenty of students who have two surnames, not double-barreled, which doesnt seem to present a problem. I think it's maybe also because DP's surname is his mother's (and mine of course comes from my dad, but that's a whole other layer of complicatedness...), plus we both have short surnames which makes it less of a mouthful.

Sorry for the long post, but thought this might be of some use/interest - if nothing else to know there must be plenty of us with similar dilemmas!

I assume it happened because people are a bit dim and forgetf.ul and after a while of both parents having the same surname it was just assumed it was Fathers surname. Maybe your family tree would give us more of a clue as to when it switched, I assume it was a gradual thing.

I used my maiden name as my ds1s middle name, it is a boys name though. I had actually meant to use it for all children but forgot to give him a second middle name and felt a bit unfair for him to be the only one to have only a shared name.

I think these sort of dilemmas are best solved on the basis that the person who cares the most wins. For me it was a priority for my family to have the same surname from the moment we married, it was a statement of unity and I didn't want anybody to question it anywhere in the world. But had I really cared that much about the blended name I would have pushed DH harder and organised the namechange for him. In the end, his name isn't so bad (just dull) and I really am quite lazy.

I agree with you from the feminist point of view - it shouldn't be the man's just because he says so. On the other hand... how easy to google it will be? Too easy? (Hint: if you do a test google of 'Jasmine Possiblesurname' now, you probably want it to give you hundreds or thousands of hits, not two or three or none!)

It's just that your child might not be grateful for a distinctive combination of forename and surname if it means that any stupid teenage facebook info online follows them for the rest of their life. 'Thompson' looks more promising from that point of view - or if your forename choice is more anonymous with the Iranian surname, because it's common in Iran, I'd go with that.

Either way, I'd probably choose based on how it would work for the child.

Silk's mixed/blended name worked for my friend. My dd has my name, dp is often assumed to have same name AND that the name is from him. How about the babyhas the name of whoever gives birth to it?

Thanks Bronze, last time I can see it happening in my family tree is the mid to late 1800s but quite rare and not constant enough to see a trend.

Beetroot - how awful that we have to consider Facebook implications - I never go anywhere near it.

Wish Scheherezadea luck -if you can't gain agreement, broach the subject again when the baby's head is emerging

I had my mums surname until I got married (dad disappeared when she was pregnant) which I quite liked!

I gave DS my maiden name as his middle name to retain the connection to my side of the family. Confused the hospital no end especially as my medical records were still in my maiden name! I was happy to let DS have his dad's surname and mine as a middle name.

If you're not married then the children should have YOUR sur name because his can always be added but if you split then you will never have the same sur name as your children. I really, really regret my decision to allow my children to have x's sur name. I shouldn't have agreed to that. UP at the school I'm refered to as Mrs X's sur name. I don't like it. When I refer to myself (obviously) as me myname, people can't figure out who I am. Whose mother am I? do i have children at the school at all, or am I just pretending!! Every year a new teacher calls me Mrs x's sur name. ARGGH I know it's not that important really. BUt I do regret it.

ps, I think it's really annoying that the father's sur name can be added later but the mother's sur name can not!!!!! How is that fair or equal?

My DP, soon to be DH, is the same. Can't help. I think my DP would feel less of a man, if child had mothers name. Sorry.

I agree with your perspective.

I'm also unmarried and my newborn will have my surname. DP's family haven't been told (that's his job) but already they are talking about "new baby ". Which is not going to happen just because they expect it. (My own mum was also a bit when she found out.)

Interestingly this is how the hospital I gave birth in do it - the baby is automatically named Baby