Can we triple barrel our child's name?

[TooManySurnames]

Ok, before I start, last time I did a thread it got picked up by journos so, just in case: please fuck off lazy journo twats.

Right. I have a single 2 syllable surname, lets say "Austen". My partner has a 3-2 syllable double barrelled name, with the first part being relevant to his heritage, say "González-Peters". We both want to share our surnames with our child, and neither of us are willing to change or drop our names, so we're in a stand off. I think he should give the first part of his name as a middle name, and double barrel the rest with mine:

[John] [González] [Peters-Austen]

He think's we should use both names as surnames, but without hyphenating:

[John] [González-Peters Austen]/ [Austen González-Peters]

I think 3 names is too much to saddle a child with, especially when part of it is already hard to spell/ pronounce. He says that it's not 3 names, it's 2, i.e. his name is not "González"+"Peters", its "González-Peters". If we were Peters-Austen then our child would have his fathers name and my name, but not his name. I can see his logic but I still think it's too much, you can't just keep adding names forever!

I'm putting it to the MN jury, and also open to alternative solutions. Will probably show him this thread.

*Second middle name of Gonzales

He think's we should use both names as surnames, but without hyphenating:

[John] [González-Peters Austen]/ [Austen González-Peters]

If you do this then the one that comes first will disappear quite quickly - people will assume it's a middle name and it'll just get dropped. That may or may not be a solution to your dilemma!

I have met people who’s parents were double barrelled and got both so John Smith-Brown-Jones-White. It’s very upper class and that’s what I’d assume, unless there were obviously other cultures at play. Mainly after a week it will be the child’s name and after 20 years no one will ever notice.
Also my dm has 4 middle names (so 6 in total) and it’s never been a problem for passports or other forms.

I'm guessing your DH is of spanish or latin american heritage.
CnP from wiki
"Spanish naming customs are historical traditions for naming children practised in Spain. According to these customs, a person's name consists of a given name (simple or composite) followed by two family names (surnames). The first surname is usually the father's first surname, and the second the mother's first surname."

so your baby would be Firstname Gonzalez Austen.
I'm ignoring your DH's surname being double barrelled.
You could hyphenate Gonzalez and Austen.
as pp have suggested.

As an aside I love double barrelled names where they're two names from different cultures.

We gave dd my surname as a middle name rather than double barrel. It was mine as the middle name just because it sounded terrible the other way around. It means we can use it when we want to but it's simpler for her when at school and filling forms and things. I do think three surnames would be a bit much for her to have to use all the time.

I think your suggestion is good Bigly.

The OP's name shouldn't be shuffled to middle name status.

I'm sure you know this but in Spain / countries with similar naming styles the parents have their own double barrelled surnames Carmen Ruiz Gonzales and Juan Gómez Zamora. When they have a baby they each give the baby one name so the baby is Little Gómez Ruiz . Not Little Gómez Ruiz González Zamora . (I'm getting ideas for my next name change though!)

So your DH is being U. He can pick one name for your baby's surname and you give one. Three surnames is simply ridiculous

Three is too many. The Spanish traditionally have both mother and father surnames but don't take both to their married name. For good reason.

Where do you put the end to the doubling? What's your child supposed to do, add your three names to their partner's two (assuming they are double-barrelled)?

Your dh needs to drop one of his. He can either used the Spanish tradition or randomly choose the one he likes best.

Ah, Mike already explained. Sorry

My child BTW has his father's surname and mine as a middle name. So firstname, middle name, my surname as second middle name, father's surname as surname. But we will informally go with first name, surname

@TooManySurnames I'm in almost the exact same position, although DH will not counter triple-barreling (thankfully). He is very much of the view that his González-Peters equivalents are "both his name", and he simply can't pick one. I suspect that this is quite a deep-rooted worry about hurting the feelings of one of his parents, especially his mum who has the less attractive name.

I have offered to go with whatever arrangement of one of his names and mine he preferred, and even said I would change mine (which I didn't change after marriage) to it in order to prove my commitment to it. But no- "they're both my name; it would be like you picking one syllable of yours". This was compounded after his dad disclosed recently that he's regretted DB'ing DH's surname from day one- DH now thinks if he gives in he'll regret it like his dad does.

He's normally a very sensible man, but he's being uncharacteristically obtuse about this. Present plan is to wait until after baby arrives and he can try and argue with me about it then, after I've gone through the trials of pregnancy and birth.

You could give the child a completely unrelated surname. if you wanted to.

Thanks for all the replies everyone. Not as much hatred for the 3 names idea as I thought there'd be, but still the majority seem to agree with me that it's too much. I especially agree with the points about what assumptions would be made on hearing the name, as we are most certainly not upper class or anywhere close! I'm afraid it'll make us (and the children) look affected and ridiculous, as well as being a practical PITA.

My partner has Portuguese heritage on his mothers side, and his surname is made up of Mothersname-fathersname, so Peters-Austen would be fathersname-myname, with his mothers name as a middle name. I only thought of doing it this way round to preserve the current order, not as a slight to his mother (who I love). Personally I'd prefer Gonzalez-Austen as the Portuguese part is very nice sounding imo. There's no way that I'll consider using my name as the middle name - 2 name places, 2 parents, we each get 1. Dropping the name of an actual parent to avoid dropping the name of a grandparent is a bit crazy. And yes to those who have asked "where does it end"? Will our children in 30 years time be saying "No, my surname name is "Gonzalez-Peters Austen" not "Gonzalez"+"Peters"+"Austen", so I can't possible choose part of it to drop". I like to think that in that situation I'd give them my blessing to drop part of it, even if it was my part of it, rather than end up with grandchildren with quintuple barrelled names or whatever. Anyway, I'll show this thread to my partner later so he can see that it's not just me who thinks 3 is too many, and hopefully we can reach a resolution over it.

There's no way that I'll consider using my name as the middle name - 2 name places, 2 parents, we each get 1. Dropping the name of an actual parent to avoid dropping the name of a grandparent is a bit crazy.

I imagine that as more woman decide to keep their own names on marriage and double barrel their children's names as a fair solution, this'll be a common dilemma for the next generation! I think that if my name were also double barrelled it'd be less of an issue and then we'd both give up a part and it'd still be "fair", whereas currently I get to give my whole name whereas he has to give up half of his. To add further insult to injury my name was given to me after my father's name, and I have a fairly strained relationship with my father, whereas my partner has a great relationship with both his parents, so I think he feels like he's having to lose the name of one of his "good" parent to include the name of my "bad" parent. We've talked about how by including "Austen" we aren't giving the children my dads name, we are giving them my name which also happens to be my dads name (and, may I add, my mums name, who is a fantastic parent) but I guess it still has that baggage attached to it. Not helped by years of me complaining about my dad. Anyway, those are the background emotional factors as far as I can tell.

Really don't, I have seven seperate words in my non English surname and it's hell. The UK banking system can't cope with unusual acented letters, there isn't enough space on debit or credit cards. paperwork becomes a nightmare, setting up work email accounts is aweful and talking to call centers is unbelievably difficult.

Simplify your DC's life in this increasingly complicated world

I think is too many and will be a pain in the arse for form filling etc.
Picking one each and having the third as a middle name is a good compromise I think.

I just wanted to say that I in no way view having my surname as a middle name for dd as 'dropping my name'. She still has my name. It is on her birth certificate and that's not going to change. In fact should she ever decided to go all traditional and change her name upon marriage it is DH's name that will be dropped and she will still have mine. So in many ways my name as a middle name is a far more permanent fixture in her life than DH's as a surname might be.

Basically what I'm saying is I don't view a middle name as the lesser option.

Has anyone mentioned an email address? I went from a name 5 letters + 5 letters to a double barrel with extra 8 letters when I married. My choice. Then changed jobs to a company with 16 letters in its name +.co.uk

Fucking nightmare. Think about their professional life after school. Usernames and logins! Argh!!!

This is very silly. It's the equivalent of tattooing a child all over with 'MADE BY SUSAN AND JOHN GONZALEZ-AUSTIN-PETERS'

The kid will still be the descendant of all it's ancestors. Your DH may as well pee all over the poor kid if he feels that territorial about it.

I suggest you both lose all the names and start from scratch with a name you choose together and both love. I've known three couples to do that!

Basically what I'm saying is I don't view a middle name as the lesser option.

That's totally up to you, but for most people it is - and it tends, in a shocking coincidence, to be mostly women who end up having their name as a middle not a surname. Most people use their surname daily and their middle name very rarely.

This is very silly. It's the equivalent of tattooing a child all over with 'MADE BY SUSAN AND JOHN GONZALEZ-AUSTIN-PETERS'

I think this is a bit unfair - no one says this about a man who wants his wife to change her name to his and then give it to the children too, even though that's arguably much more territorial. I can understand why the DH wants both names included, but it's just not practical and so he's going to have to compromise.

Surely if you have Spanish (or Portuguese) heritage you go with:

Father is Pancho Orozco Gonzalez (sorry can't do accents - because he got Orozco from his dad and Gonzalez from his mum)
Mother is Maria Cruz Diaz

Child is therefore Orozco Cruz and if you are in an English speaking country and you want people to understand that this is their last name, in toto, you use Orozco-Cruz.

So in your case
Baby Gonzalez-Austen

You can of course give them two surnames as in Spanish tradition
Baby Gonzalez Austen
And you can even tell people it's a two part surname. Whether you choose to do that depends on whether you want to keep on telling people.

My DCs have my last name as their final middle name and some people think they are double barrelled, or that we all are.

But Lisa I'm referring to this egotistical battle of wills in which neither parent will back down, but would rather saddle their child with an unworkable bitch of a name instead.

Having or not having part of a name doesn't make a child any less the product of two families coming together.