What do you think about hyphenated surname?

[CravingCheese]

My DH decided that he'd prefer a double barrelled surname for the lo.

I personally feel like it's just too long and that both our surnames are a bit fussy, especially if someone were to combine them....

What do you think?
and would it influence your opinion / preferences in regards to first names?

I feel like many of the names on our list simply wouldn't 'work' with both our surnames (together)....

[CaptainMyCaptain]

@ThePolishWombat a friend of mine was half Estonian and her partner was English. They called theur children Estonian first name /English first name/ Estonian surname not hyphenated /English surname so they could chose when they were older.

[CaptainMyCaptain]

As a Reception teacher I found that double barrelled surnames (and first names) make it harder for the child to learn to write their names. Unfortunately, in my experience, the least able often had the longest names. It wasn't a sign of being posh where I worked.

[ThePolishWombat]

In hindsight I wish I’d have kept my surname and double barrelled the dcs.
I had a very polish surname, and changed it to DH’s very simple, one syllable surname. Now I’m w bit miffed that I didn’t give my kids a name that represents half their heritage

[Gallivespian]

Yes, @Mike, but you also said 'I tend to think of it as parents who are not married.'

[MikeUniformMike]

@Gallivespian, I mentioned that.

I know a Jane Jones-Smith, middle aged, whose ancestor joined the surnames to secure an inheritance.

I know a John Jones-Smith, whose parents are married but are known as Dr Jones and Mr Smith.

I know a Jay Jones-Smith whose parents are Ms Smith and Mr Jones.

Obviously,I have changed the names.

[Gallivespian]

It feels... Idk, as if he is try to suggest that it was wrong (of me) to not want to pass on my surname. Or as if I shouldn't have agreed to us using his surname for the LO.

But why don't you want to pass it on? This is your child!

Is this down to some wrangle about power or communication in your relationship, rather than anything actually to do with names?

I don't think we even discussed it it was just obvious our child would have both our names any more than we discussed whether I was going to arbitrarily adopt DH's name when we got married. (I think @Mike's idea that only unmarried parents give both their surnames to their children is rather old-fashioned, and presupposes that women change their name on marriage.)

I think we only discussed very briefly, I think on the way to register DS, which order the two names would go in, which sounded best and most natural.

[MikeUniformMike]

It can mean something like the name was retained for something like inheritance purposes, so was considered U.

It can mean that the mother kept her surname on marriage.

I tend to think of it as parents who are not married.

IMO the child should have the mother's surname, so would suggest:
Firstname [Middlename] Dadsurname Mumssurname.

[CravingCheese]

Surely it's just as much the other way around? You are deciding how and if his name is included in the name of your child?

Not really. He wanted us to use his name and I was perfectly fine with that.

If he were to decide that he didn't want to pass on his name? I'd be perfectly fine with that as well. (he is aware of that, btw.)

But he recently decided that he wanted us to use both names and that any other solution would be unfair to me (or him).

It feels... Idk, as if he is try to suggest that it was wrong (of me) to not want to pass on my surname. Or as if I shouldn't have agreed to us using his surname for the LO.

I honestly don't know why it bothers me so much. But it just does... And I'd rather give the LO my first name than my surname tbh.

[Gallivespian]

And as if DH was deciding how we'd include me / my family in the naming process...

Surely it's just as much the other way around? You are deciding how and if his name is included in the name of your child?

OP, you clearly have an agenda here. I don't understand it, because to me someone who didn't change her name on marriage suggests someone with strong (and entirely correct, in my view) feelings on women's names and patriarchal hangovers -- but your responses on this thread suggest you want to be told not to give your child your and your DH's surname so that you can give him/her a long and elaborate first name.

I think that's ridiculous, but clearly you don't.

Most people who give their children both names (whether or not they hypenate them -- our son simply has both surnames, with no hyphen) don't think that their names sound particularly mellifluous together, any more than they think their postcode sounds appealing to the ear. People aren't primarily choosing to give their child both names for aesthetic appeal, they're doing it because those are their names, and their child gets a name from each parent.

[CravingCheese]

Well, going by these responses... Maybe I'm being unreasonable.
But it just seems messy to me. And as if DH was deciding how we'd include me / my family in the naming process... Which seems to defeat the point.

His name/her name/keep one each (as they do in Spain)/make a new name

If they'll pick one name it won't be equal anymore. And I'm not too keen on the idea of making up a new name tbh.

[WineGummyBear]

TatianaLarina they can do whatever they like. Use your imagination.

His name/her name/keep one each (as they do in Spain)/make a new name

[DivGirl]

We double-barrelled DS surname hisname-myname, but we both hated it.

Ended up formally changing it to just my name after a year. Much less of a mouthful now.

[CravingCheese]

Just give the child your surname with husbands as middle.

My DH would be strongly opposed to that...
He definitely wants to 'pass on' his surname.

I personally really like my first name I'd rather pass my first name on to the LO by using it as a middle (or first) name.
It would also feel more meaningful to me 🤷🏻‍♀️



We've done it, but its only temporary until we get married next year, and me and dd will change to my partners surname.
That solution makes sense. But it wouldn't work for us. (I didn't change my surname when we got married.)

[HPandTheNeverEndingBedtime]

DD is double barrelled her dad and I split up during pregnancy and we wanted her to have both names so she would see herself as part of both families regardless of whether we were together or not.

Yes, her name is long (she has fairly long first and middle names too) from a practical point she learnt how to write the alphabet really quickly as most of the letters are in her name.

Day to day we just shorten her name to the first 2 initials unless its something important that has to be written properly.

[Gallivespian]

Nothing disingenuous about it, @TatianaLarina. I’m not from the UK, and where I come from, yes, it also has traditional associations with the UC, but the vast majority of names you see doubled in my son’s class list (we’re moving him to a school in my home country) are simply absolutely not UC names.

And I feel sure I can leave it to DS to decide which name/s he will give his children if or when he has them.

[HepzibahGreen]

Just give the child your surname with husbands as middle. After all, 50% of marriages end in divorce, often before the oldest child is 10. It's much simpler to give the child your name in that scenario. My friend has just had her 3rd child. She is e.g Smith, first two children are Jones and last child (from new partner) is Brown. That just seems nuts to me. I will never understand why women give their children a different name to their own.

[Whoops75]

It’s a lot of faff imo
One last name is loads

[BlouseAndSkirt]

“Well yes it shifted from actual posh to wannabe posh that’s rather the point”

It has shifted to be very common where a mother has not changed her name.

[TatianaLarina]

Disingenuous Gallivespian.

I don’t think anyone doesn’t know that in the U.K. it was primarily a U tradition until recently. (Generally acknowledging an inheritance or a family name that would die out.)

And no-one has explained what all the double barrelled offspring do when they marry.

[Lazypuppy]

We've done it, but its only temporary until we get married next year, and me and dd will change to my partners surname.

I personally don't like it, but it was the fairest way to do it when she was born, and i knew it wouldn't be forever.

[Gallivespian]

It has absolutely no ‘posh’ connotations at all for the vast majority of people, for heaven’s sake. What it says is that it’s the 21st century and increasing numbers of women (a) don’t change their names on marriage and (b) don’t automatically want to give their children their husband’s name only.

[TatianaLarina]

I think it's starting to lose the posh/pretentious associations.

Well yes it shifted from actual posh to wannabe posh that’s rather the point.

So when the baby gets married - do they triple barrel it? (Or quadruple if spouse’s parents have done the same)?

[IVflytrap]

I like double-barelled surnames. It feels fairer than any of the alternative choices, and I think it's starting to lose the posh/pretentious associations.

As a pp said, the other option which includes both is to put one surname as a middle name.

[MonaChopsis]

A Greek friend of mine and her English partner gave the kids both names, no hyphen. The kids tend to use the Greek surname in Greece, the English here, but both names are on the birth certificate as as they get older they have tended to choose one as their 'main' surname for day to day use. I thought at first it would be clumsy, but the older the kids get the more I like it!

[CravingCheese]

DH's surname was the 'plan', as one might say.
My surname? Sure.
both? Not a fan.

And I'm not against a 'link' to my family. I'd love to name the LO after my parents (first or middle names).

Give the baby your surname and his as a middle name? I've already suggested that as a compromise solution...