Has anyone else done this?

[BeckyBook]

My husband and I plan on giving our future children a surname made from our two surnames combined ie the first three letters of his surname and the last four letters of mine. It actually makes a really nice normal-sounding-but-unique name and we're really happy about it.

However, I have had some interesting responses when I tell people what we plan to do. (Can I point out I only ever mention it when someone asks what surname our children will have. I have a reputation amongst my friends as a feminist, and we are considered quite a hippy couple by most of our mates and family, so people are curious about we will do.) Some of the responses have been positive, like 'Oh wow! How modern!', some surprised - 'ooh never thought of doing that' and some odd - 'are you sure that's legal?'

Have also had plenty of responses along the lines of 'oh that's cruel, they'll be the laughing stock of the playground, they'll be ostracised, people will laugh at them'. What I want to ask you good ladies is, has this happened to anyone else who has done this? My thinking is that there are plenty of kids in London today who have different surnames from one - or both - of their parents, and I don't understand how this can still be considered an issue. Has it been for you?

Oh and one friend told me that I would have to carry birth certificates around to prove to people that I am the mother! Anyone experienced this?
Very keen to hear other's stories

Trib I am LOL at your post.

We are planning to put our names together when we have children (I don't want to use our real names, but think along the lines of Winter + Smith to make Wintersmith). I didn't change my name on marriage, and I think it makes an ideal solution.

weird. just being different for the sake of it if you ask me.

also having families with different surnames causes lots shitloads of of grief.

I knew of a family who did this. Husband's name was Cantwell, wife's Westfield. and they they created some dodgy sounding hybrid.

Westwell or cantfeild. lol.. can't field. Ha ha. think it must have been westwell.

Holy crap!
Not only will the poor child be growing up with the worlds most dappy parents, it'll be afflicted for life with a crap made up name!

Agree - just being different for the sake of it. FGS just pick one and be done with it.

Are you all going to have the new name? Or just the children?

I think if neither parent has the children's name it might be confusing - eg for schools etc. But you don't have to let that bother you.

Don't know anyone who's done this btw; everyone I know has a) wife takes his name when they marry (the vast majority) b) they double-barrel their names when they marry (quite a few) c) they db their names when they don't marry (a few) d) they marry or not and she keeps her name (a few) or e) they both change their name when they marry to something quite random (my BiL).

I think if you were putting full surnames together to make a name then that is okay,but i have never heard of anyone taking a few letters of each and combining it.

Do you think surnames have any real reflection of belonging to part of a family and greater extended family anymore?

Within my family of five i have two girls who have two surnames but only the last one..same as mine is ever used and my OH and son have different surname...this is not posed that much of a problem yet but i can imagine...nursery,travelling etc with your made up name might.

only the last one is used....sorry

sorry, I can't see this as anything but deeply naff no matter how nice the hybrid name is.
And I am a hippyish type

I think its a good idea. I was thinking of doing this myself, except I haven't been able to come up with a good combination yet.
But I do think that the mum and dad should have the same surname as well - you can change it by depoll.

I think it only seems strange because its a new idea. But all surnames were chosen (or given) at the beginning anyway, so I don't think its crazy, just something to get used to.

I think its better than double barrelled names as its shorter, less of a mouthful, and easier for a child to write down. It also gets over the point of whose surname to choose, and whether the woman should take the man's surname. i think its a pretty ideal solution.

not keen.

when we got married dh took my maiden name as his middle name by deed poll. i took his surname for my surname and did a deed poll to put my maiden name as a middle name.

when dd was born she got my maiden name as a middle name.

I don't mean to be rude to you Becky, but my honest opinion is that it is strange. If I met you and you explained it to me, I'd think you were a bit nutty. I really don't mean to be offensive.

Have you considered that the people who said to you 'Oh wow! How modern!','ooh never thought of doing that' ,'are you sure that's legal?' were not just trying to be polite and inwardly thinking "crazy lady".

Glad I´m not the only one who thought it was the most ridiculous thing I´d ever heard of!

Crokky - no offence taken. I think plenty of people are of the opinion that I am a bit nutty anyway!

As I've stated twice, we are really happy with both the idea and the name; I am not bothered by peoples' opinions but am keen to hear about potential issues we need to consider in order to find the best solution.

Wheniwishuponastar - I think it's the ideal solution too! We have considered the idea of the two of us taking the new surname as well, but run into practical issues. Each of us has own business, and our websites are our full names. Plus, as a self-employed businesswoman where the name of my business is my own full name, I would like to keep it.

I like the idea of giving my kids names they will like to keep always too. I too will sit and wait for the angry masses to jump on me, but I really really really dislike the patriarchal assumption that children take the father's name. To me it harks back to the mediaeval idea of names signifying to whom you belong. I am sure I am not the only woman who feels this way. Also, as has been pointed out, all surnames are originally 'made up', denoting a man's profession, reputation, origin or appearance. And as I have said, it is such a nice name that no one hearing it for the first time would ever think it was weird. Actually, I googled it once and found that a slight variation is a 'real' name. But the way I see it, once it is attached to a real person it is a real name.

Thanks again for your contributions. I take offence to none of it. I appreciate that some of you find the idea strange and abnormal but am not upset by it. I have never been one to run with the herd, and look forward to having kids as unique, unusual and special as their name

I like the idea of giving my kids names they will like to keep always too.

Lets hope you don´t have daughters who marry and want to take their hubbys names!

Becky - I completely agree with you about the patriarchal aspect of surnames.

I think this is a great idea.

DD has a made up surname - for exactly the reasons you give. Double-barrelling not an option, given our rather unwieldy surnames.

People's reactions have largely been quite positive - I think both sets of grandparents were a little bit and the lady at the registry office was very - but by and large people have been accepting.

No practical issues so far - I do carry a copy of DD's birth cert when I travel with her, but it hasn't been a problem so far.

I think people's reactions on this thread are rather judgy and OTT. I completely understand your reasons for doing this and applaud you!

BTW, this was not uncommon in the 1970s. There's an article about it here and there was also a Channel 4 documentary recently.

PS If people think we are crazy for this, then so be it. I personally would never change my name to my husband's or give my child my husband's name but not my own. Each to their own.

Good for you Becky! I literally cannot understand why it seems such a nuts idea (seriously, apart from it seeming 'odd' or 'naff' - i would be interested in hearing a concrete reason why it isn't a good idea.) Having read the thread about made-up first names, i can understand to some extent the 'naff' bit. But the OP isn't suggesting a made-up name with no history.
But also since surnames are more often 'noun' type words related to an object (Miller, Black, etc.), rather than names that sound nice, i think it is different.
if anyone is able to calmly intelligently explain what the problem is, i would be genuinely interested. My DP isn't keen on doing it, just because other people will think it is odd and if there aren't actually any concrete reasons then it seems ridiculous not to do something because other people think its silly, but don't actually have a good reason.
So... (please don't shout)...

Four things that always occur to me when I hear people thinking of doing something different to the 'traditional' approach to surnames are:

1. Your surname was given to you by a man anyway (usually) so it's not that feminist an approach to retain it

2. If you double barrell, then your child does the same thing, then their child does the same thing, do we end up with Octo-barrelled names several generations along?

3)If you hybrid your names, then your child wants to do the same, they won't be keeping the name anyway in future - in both options 2 and 3 the only practical solution is to lose one half of the surname - but which parent to choose?? This may offend later on!!

4. Genaelogy is something that many people are interested in. Will families that move away from traditional protocol lose the ability to trace their ancestors several generations down the line?

Heated, that was funny! I wonder if the dad of the dc1 thought the whole country was going to end up wiht the same sur name as him!

4. if their births are registered, showing their parents names, then I don't see why it wouldn't HELP the average genealogist. Nothing worse than trying to trace Mary Ryan.

Mumtojust3... I don't think your first point is valid - the point isn't whose name it is or where it originated, rather rejecting the expectation that you will assume a name just because you decide to marry. Retaining your original name is about retaining the identity you have had for (in my case) 27 years before marriage and seeing no good reason why you would 'become' someone different overnight.

And for all those people who talk of bureaucratic nightmares with different names, my SIL said changing her name on marriage was the most irritating, fiddly, confusing things she's ever done.

Back to the OP, we considered doing this until we realised the combined surname would be 'Stoner' We thought about Stone, and would have both taken it as well as any potential DC. We couldn't be bothered in the end, mainly because it did feel a little, well, pretentious. So we just kept our surnames.

When DS was born we thought again about picking a new family name for all three of us, and settled on my MIL's maiden name (she's not from this country and the last in the line - it would have meant continuing the lineage, and was quite a nice name too) but EVERYONE in the family, on both sides, totally freaked out about it. Could not get their heads round it. There were tears. So I have my name, DH has his, and DS has my surname with DH's as a middle name. Ridiculous.

Think if we have another, we might well all change. Have to convince DH though...

Sorry, that was long!

Mumtojust3 - the problem with your four points is that they just end up reinforcing the status quo, i.e. everybody ends up taking the man's name. This to me is a much bigger problem!

I agree with jamandjerusalsem about point 1: my name is about MY identity. Yes, it originally came from my father, but in the course of my life so far it has come to be associated with me. My husband's name, however, has got nothing to do with my life up until marriage.

Point 4 assumes that geneology is just about tracing the line along the father's side - and his father's and his father's etc.

There are a number of possible solutions to points 2 and 3 - e.g. that women 'keep' their mother's name and men 'keep' their father's name, or vice versa.

OK, points taken. I don't really have any strong feelings one way or another, and I agree that not all my points are as valid as each other. Was really just trying to respond to wheniwishuponastar's challenge in the post above instead of ridiculing the idea with no real justification other then my own personal opinion.