Giving baby DPs surname

[FlowerPig]

So it never crossed my mind that baby would have my surname until I saw threads on here re the potential difficulties in not having the same surname.

Me and DP are in a stable relationship, we are engaged but marriage isn't something I've ever really wanted so we've never started planning a wedding. Only now do I think about it, purely so that I'd have the same surname as baby - to me marriage is just a piece of paper.

I am quite happy for baby to have DPs surname. Am I as mad as some of the threads make out or are those views pretty extreme?

Anyone got any thoughts/advice/first hand experience to share?

I dont feel like I'm expected to do anything, like I'm expected to take my partners name or give it to my children. It was an open discussion we both had. Double barrelled would of sounded awful and slightly rude Haha. I get that in history is has obviously been different but
Surely now being able to make a choice of what I want isn't sexist? Not trying to start an argument, I just dont feel like I've bowed down to some sort or sexist tradition as it was a choice that I made..

I bitterly regret giving my daughter her fathers surname.
Ended up changing it when I got married ( to someone else) so we all had the same surname but thoughout her later childhood and even her early adulthood when there was a need for her birth certificate or even NHS card it brought it all back ,that I was an idiot.
Don’t do it.

@micc

I dont feel like I'm expected to do anything, like I'm expected to take my partners name or give it to my children. It was an open discussion we both had. Double barrelled would of sounded awful and slightly rude Haha. I get that in history is has obviously been different but Surely now being able to make a choice of what I want isn't sexist? Not trying to start an argument, I just dont feel like I've bowed down to some sort or sexist tradition as it was a choice that I made..

Absolutely. Did your partner at any point consider changing their name or was it all about whether you were going to change yours - the assumption being that it wasn’t something he needed to worry about in relation to his name on account of being male. (Linked directly with passing on of the male name for generations etc.)

I asked DH whether he wanted to change his name long before discussing that I wouldn’t be. So he did think about it. We considered changing to a completely new name but neither of us could be arsed with the administrative crap that would cause. So we stayed as we are.

Had the venue change their “congratulations Mr + Mrs Hisname before I would go into the ceremony.

Ok, I understand. He didn't consider my last name for himself as again we are not married but I dont think we would consider my last name. It's not a great word and its easily made fun of, also he would of then had the same name of an odd celebrity! Maybe if It was a different last name i would feel different.. but again I'm happy as we made the decision for our daughter that feels right and would give her the easiest life. And the thought of potentially starting a new one doesnt really appeal to me.. as I dont mind his last name and again it means more to him. He had no issue giving her my last name and was quite happy for me to go ahead but I wanted to have a discussion with him and take everything on board of what he would like and why as well. :)

I’m shocked reading this thread as I’m not married but would always give my child their dads surname. It wouldn’t even cross my mind, I just thought that’s you did?

It makes a big difference in airports etc when travelling with child. I was married to a Mr Another but now divorced. Child 1 is Miss Keats, Child 2 is Mr Another Keats. No issue. (In Europe -not far from the UK)

My friend Miss A - engaged to Mr Beother. Child 1 is Miss Beother, Child 2 is Mr Beother (Junior) and lots of issues at the airport. Literally a hold up for 30 minutes.

You split up -child has a different surname. If you don't see why have a different name -just use yours.

Why don't you just double barrel? Or use his surname as a middle name?

It's so odd that the tradition of getting married is dying out but that men are still having their surnames attached to children.

Also the traditional purpose of an engagement seems to have shifted!

OP Congratulations on your pregnancy (or perhaps your daughter is already here; if so, congratulations for that). For your own sake, and even more for hers, please, please read this:
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

You say that you have no wish or intention to split from your partner, nor he from you. That's great. That's lovely. But what if - heaven forfend - he was run over by a bus, or developed a fatal illness? These very sad things could have a big practical and financial impact on you and your daughter, as well as an emotional one.

Have - for example - you and your partner made wills? Have you named each other on life insurance policies to make sure your daughter is provided for? Etc etc etc.

As other posters have said, it is 100% NOT traditional for babies to take the name of their unmarried fathers.
And, in many - possibly most - cultures, it is NOT traditional for a woman to change her name on marriage. In the UK, the best known example of this is Scotland, where deeply, deeply respectable married women were known by their unmarried surnames.

I have the same surname as all my children I never considered otherwise, none have their fathers surname.

Practically speaking I travelled to Spain with a friend and her son, her sons passport got destroyed, and a replacement had to be requested. Because she didn't have the same surname as her son there were no end of issues. Spanish police ended up contacting his birth after (who hadn't been in contact for years but had the same surname and is on the birth certificate) for permission to issue the passport. It was a logistical nightmare.

Just don't go part time or become a SAHM without the legal protection of marriage. If you buy a house make sure your name is on it too.

If you split and aren't married he has to pay child maintenance he has no financial obligation to you. If house and savings are in his name, then you could be left high and dry.

I hate this 'piece of paper' nonsense. It is your legal protection.

Can woman please stop following old traditions when woman were seen as second class citizens and names must follow the male line....god we are in 2020.

My eldest DS has my surname, i havent changed my name in marriage...why would I are should I? And yes I had an abusive father and yes my mother changed her name but it just needs us to stop . Men dont change there surnames and they can have names they dont like too or have shitty parents. I was shocked at female friends sending me congratulations on my marriage to Mr and Mrs and his surname... ...

Can woman please stop following old traditions when woman were seen as second class citizens and names must follow the male line....god we are in 2020

This 100%. I didn’t change my name when I got married either and I can’t really fathom why other people do.

But it's NOT an old radition - it's a relatively recent invented one. There is nothing in law, religion or tradition - going back for hundreds if not thousands of years - that says a woman should change her name.

The tradition became entrenched in the UK as far back as the 17th century so I disgaree that it is new

I was engaged to DCs dad when they were born. They have his surname. We have since split up. It has never bothered me, or caused any problems with anything that we don't have the same name.
It seems to upset other people though

To me it's a piece of paper that makes it more difficult and painful to leave if/when you want/need.

OK, but that ship sails once you have a child with someone and the birth certificate becomes that piece of paper.

I wonder, if someone were to tell you that you could sign a single contract which would protect you financially in the event that one of you died, or ensured that you were consulted if your partner were unable to consent to a medical procedure, if you would be less reluctant to sign it. You could see a solicitor and have a complex series of contracts drawn up to give you the equivalent legal protections of marriage, or as a pp has said you could go to the registry office one morning and get married or enter a civil partnership (although make sure you are clear on the distinction). It can be totally unsentimental and you can think of it as a legal process rather like signing for a mortgage. You don’t have to wear a ring, or change your name or title, or tell anyone if you don’t want.

Naturally oeople can do as they please and it of no consequence to me.

However I've posted here because it was described as somehow traditional for children to be given an unmarried father's surname and I'd hate for someone to think they are obliged to give the father his due in that way.

I gave my son a double barrelled surname. I had experienced problems travelling with my daughter. Also... she started saying she wished we had the same surname. It was too late to change it as her father wouldn't allow it, but my son (different father) got both surnames.

It's also partly for financial reasons I don't want to marry DP.....again....not that this was the reason for the post.

He is a very successful business owner, who is older than me and I/we have already faced enough judgement over the years re why we are together. It was a big decision to have a child together on my part because I was worried we'd take 10 steps backwards with people starting to judge once again.

He would never hang me or our daughter out to dry if we were to split, I know this as he hasn't with his previous DDs mother (they split many years before we met if you're wondering) and he just isn't that kind of man (I know, I know, I'll never know what kind of person he may turn out to be...)

If he gets run over by a bus I earn enough to look after the two of us, certainly not to the level we have at the moment but we would manage just fine.

I have no desire use marriage as a financial security blanket, I have no interest in his money/businesses if he weren't here, that is for his children to rightly inherit, and I have spent many years trying to prove this. I do now have an interest in the house our daughter will grow up in, which we have discussed and will be added to his will.

I am signing off this thread now, I've got what I needed (and plenty more) from it, thanks to all who were kind, pleasant and to the point in their contributions x

@Feminist10101 not sure you can judge how bothered I was given you have no idea of my childhood experiences. Despite the heinous crime of changing to my husband's surname, I will continue fighting what are, for me, bigger feminist battles. Each to their own though.

[quote Pegase]@Feminist10101 not sure you can judge how bothered I was given you have no idea of my childhood experiences. Despite the heinous crime of changing to my husband's surname, I will continue fighting what are, for me, bigger feminist battles. Each to their own though. [/quote]
Hey. No odds to me. If you’d never gotten married would you have changed the name ever? If it was a memory of such a horrendous time I would have thought you’d have got shot of it the minute you could, not wait to be rescued by a knight on a white horse. Just logic, I guess.

SIL did this but only because her DP was married and she and PIL don’t want anyone to know that she is a single parent.

My DC have both mine and DH’s names because I tagged his to mine when we married. I didn’t plan to have DC at that stage but it was a no brainer when Idecided did want to have DC.

In your position OP I would suggest both names.

The tradition did not really become "entrenched in the UK " in the 17th cent.

From the 17th cent among women with property in England, the legal institution of 'couverture'* did indeed mean that women had to trade as if they were one legal person with their husband, under the same name, but that did not apply to all women in the UK, and to almost none in Europe. And it was a legal institution, not a symbol of affection or personal commitment.
*oro.open.ac.uk/19216/2/14BC4459.pdf

Outside England but still in the UK, as late as the 19th /early 20th cent cent, Scottish women kept their own names. Even today, 'mother's maiden name' is recorded on many Scottish legal documents, such as death registration.
books.google.co.uk/books?id=cVpuDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT37&lpg=PT37&dq=amy+erickson+surnames&source=bl&ots=NIyYzLHGFl&sig=ACfU3U38zxW190eULS9z7XxSH4g3V5gq7g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5o6bi3ubrAhWfQxUIHdKMDh44FBDoATAHegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=amy%20erickson%20surnames&f=false

This might be interesting:

"Dr Erickson adds that in the early 19th century, England was the only country in Europe where a woman took her husband’s name upon marriage. The tradition of referring to a wife by her husband’s full name, for example Mrs John Dashwood in Austen’s 1811 novel Sense & Sensibility, was to distinguish between multiple Mrs of the same surname within a family."

"Only around 1900 did Miss and Mrs come to take on the meaning we understand today, and it wasn’t long before that fell foul of changing attitudes. Rather than being a recent invention produced by modern notions of political correctness, Ms was proposed as a neutral alternative to Miss and Mrs as early as 1901."

www.thevintagenews.com/2019/02/06/mrs-miss-and-ms/

see also here, re the use of 'Mrs' and 'Miss':
academic.oup.com/hwj/article-abstract/78/1/39/627183?redirectedFrom=PDF
and here:
www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/mistress-miss-mrs-or-ms-untangling-the-shifting-history-of-titles