unmarried couples - who's surname did your child take?

[Tigger31]

I'm interested to know how you decided which surname your kids should have?

It seems most common for them to automatically take the bloke's name, but I don't know why that is?

Agree with jackieharris's point.

Also wonder about why in all these threads people seem to assume that the British approach is universal - there's an awful lot of different variations on surnames or family names, what names women use, what names children get.

Yet people say things like "oh it's always going to have been a man's name somewhere back in the chain" - yes, because one male name would automatically count more than any number of women's names, eh?

Blimey. Not sure there's any need to take that tone slightly. This is just a discussion. Those saying it didn't really matter to them or that it's equally valid for a child to be named after its father are entitled to their view. Some posters on here clearly didn't feel pressured into giving their children their father's surname but actively made a choice to do so. They haven't betrayed the sisterhood or anything.

I think your last paragraph is a reference to something I said but I don't really understand the point you're making. I don't think I said it meant women's names were worth less. As I said it was just a musing on the fact that most female surnames would have derived from a male line at some point in history because of the tradition of marriage and of taking the mans name. I didn't say that was necessarily "right" either.

I think all this worrying about which parent's last name to give a child is pointless, we women get the choice about which name to give our children, mothers have to be present to register the birth and we don't even have to let the father know when we are going. We won that one, ladies, it's the Dads that aren't getting a look in here. If women are choosing to give their children their father's last name then that's fine by me, so long as we get the choice. I don't believe in marriage, but dp wanted them identifiable as his and I am happy he has that. I love my partner and I like making him happy, I'm not going to feel bad because I didn't spitefully give the kids my name even though I don't really care about it.

So now women who give their children their surname are spiteful? Don't talk bollocks.

Rhiannon... Just have a think about it, why is it that a man can only be put down as the father of the baby if he attends registration himself, or if he's married to the mum? Perhaps to preclude women from putting someone's name down who denies paternity, rightly or wrongly. It's nothing to do with 'winning' at all. The fact is that it is usually clear who gave birth to the child, but can be extremely unclear who fathered the child.

We can 'make our oh happy' by giving the baby his name if we want, but that's not going to ensure that the dad actually has a relationship with his child... He has to take responsibility for making that happen. And many don't. Even within marriages.

Not aimed at you specifically worriedmum!

It's more the assumption that naming has always been the same (fixed surnames weren't universal in Wales till the mid eighteenth century, unless you were gentry) and that there's only one option. Family names are actually quite interesting in how they vary across the globe, some places don't use surnames at all!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mononymous_person#Countries_where_mononyms_are_normal

We are married, and I haven't changed my name. I might consider double barrelling my name at some point in the vague future, but I haven't given it much thought.

For children, they will have double barrelled names.

My husband wasn't keen on this, and says he doesn't like double barrelled names, and whatnot. I pointed out that it was the only option we had. I wanted the children to have my name. He wanted his name. Double barrelling was literally the only option we had that wasn't totally unfair on the other person.

In a moment of madness I did once say to DH that the children could have his last name only if I had total carte blanche over the first names - much to my surprise he said no. That to me sort of sealed the deal - if it was THAT important to him, then he would have given me choice on the first names.

TerraNovice - I didn't say all women who give their kids their own name are spiteful, did I? I said it would have been spiteful of me, in my situation because I didn't care about it when my partner did. The bollocks talk was yours there I'm afraid.

I'm not here to criticise people, I just don't like the sniping at people who make different decisions to others, do what suits your family and leave others to do the same. Why is that so hard for some people? I'm all for discussions but then the judging starts and it pisses me off, keeping a family together and happy is tough enough without being judged by complete strangers who have personal feelings that they believe the whole population should share. Live and let live.

And Guyropes, we get to choose for sensible reasons, but the fact of the matter is that if we aren't married then we get to choose the names of the baby entirely and our partners get no say at all. This is our call, and instead of being pleased about that, we now have to refuse to include the Dad's name, because other random and strangely intense women don't approve? We have the control, I don't mind using that fairly, and I don't have to feel bad about that.

I don't like the assumption that all the women who posted that they don't like their own names are somehow making it up because they are secretly misogynist and under the thumb. It's irritating.

we now have to refuse to include the Dad's name, because other random and strangely intense women don't approve?

Perhaps I've not read the thread as carefully as you, but I didn't get the feeling that I have to do something because other people on this thread would not approve... More that I was being given the opportunity to think about the choices I have made and have to make again in a few months time with a bit of context.

I don't feel defensive or regretful or resentful about my dc having their dad's name. I know we agreed to it for good reasons at the time. And I am confident I am making the right decision about my unborn dc according to my current situation. None of the posts on here have made me feel forced to do anything, just think more deeply about what it means for a chd to have either its mum a or dad's name.

It's such a fascinating topic, isn't it?

I don't agree about the suggestion of women "winning", but I do completely understand the concern some men have that if their DC have a different surname to them, a lot of people might assume that means they aren't their biological children. I don't feel like that problem presents itself anywhere near as much for women with a different surname from their DC. Though that is a societal response, and not one I think we should be happy with.

Yet interestingly it strikes me sometimes, especially on places like MN, that people seem happier with the idea of changing their name on marriage but more willing to get up in arms about children not having the same surname as their mother. That's the reason I posted about it before - it intrigues me, it seems like there is a bit of a conflict there.

Double barreling or having two surnames seems like the only sensible option in the long term - to move away from the current standard of a family surname and work towards a more Spanish, for example, system where there are shared names.

I also wonder whether many people (and I thought this too) don't like the sound of double or double barreled surnames, or think their surnames don't work together, purely because it is much less common in the UK to have a double or double barreled surname?

Guybrush I read the whole thing and most of the posts are fine of course, but there are definite criticisms of us who aren't subverting the 'norm'. I am glad you don't feel defensive or regretful about giving your kids their dad's name, you shouldn't. Nor should you if you named them after the milkman or your Nan's friend, it's your decision and I'm pleased that you're happy with it.

Guybrush? Sorry, Guyropes I appear to have baby brain.

I know this might sound radically feminist - which I'm not - but I don't really get why babies should take the father's name if the parents aren't married. Yes the baby shares half its genes with its father but it's the mother who's carried and given birth to it and I think that deserves a lot of credit, in the form of the baby taking her name (or at least have both names double-barrelled). I feel really quite strongly about this.
DP and I are expecting our first in 3 weeks and at first I was adamant that DS should have my surname (the double barrelled option doesn't sound very good at all!) however, now we're really struggling in choosing a first name as each have a favourite that the other isn't keen on, so I've suggested that if we go for DP's choice of first name then I get to choose the middle name and he'll have my surname and vice versa. I think it's a really good compromise although DP is very stubborn and wants to choose all the names himself

*XP is going to have a problem soon as he is planning to take the DC abroad this summer and he hasn't yet realised that he will need a letter from me to do so. (It's not all about him you see, and would require some interest in the world beyond his immediate orbit to find out what PR actually involves.)

I will tell him of course as I wouldn't want to ruin the DC's holiday, but I do wish he would find this stuff out for himself.*

How is this relevant? Maybe if you had some interest beyond your immediate orbit you'd find out this thread is about women's choices on naming their babies, not your ex

Back on topic, DH's ex has remarried, so mum and step dad both have a different surname to the children. They don't seem to have a problem, and even manage to take the children on holiday without written permission from their father, so becool, your ex may well have no problem.

It wouldn't occur to me that I'd need written permission to take my kids on holiday either, tbh.

lillamyy - I don't really get why babies should take the father's name if the parents aren't married

It's a wider point than that, though, as increasingly many women aren't taking their husbands name when they get married. So in some cases whether you are married or not isn't relevant.

lillamyy- I feel quite strongly the opposite. Women have automatic "rights" to their kids, they go on the birth certificate, it's generally accepted they are the main carer, RP pretty much automatically goes to the mother on separation, the onus is always on the father to argue his case if he wants residency.

Giving Dc their fathers name was a gesture that they are his kids too, and he is as much their father as I am their mother. It tells the world he is their father :)

" it's generally accepted they are the main carer, RP pretty much automatically goes to the mother on separation, t"

RP is more commonly mother than father because mothers are more commonly the primary carer.

We gave our DC a double-barelled surname.

We weren't married when they were born and I didn't want them to have Dp's surname and he didn't want them to just have my surname.

We're now married and all of us have the double-barelled surname.

It's been a nightmare getting the banks to recognise that DH has changed his name on marriage and they want him to do it legally by deed poll before they'll amend their records!

We were married when DS was born but both kept our own surnames (which I think is an important point to make - neither of us chose to change our names on marriage, given it was a decision open to either of us).

Our son is double-barrelled. No one ever seems to have assumed that he is neither mine nor DH's. I suspect most folk aren't that fussed in what other people name their kids, unless they are unusually nosy or judgemental.

Fwiw, we may decide to use my surname with future children, making us a family where not only do adults have different surnames, siblings do, too. It's just a name to both of us, and neither of us desperately wants our own name used particularly. We did consider picking an entirely new name, but we think that would have caused actual hurt feelings in my other half's extended family, and given that it really doesn't matter to us, I didn't want to make people unhappy for nothing.

"want him to do it legally by deed poll before they'll amend their records"

I believe this is required legally, to be fair to the bank.

I'm single both my dds have my name. If I got married I would keep my name and the children would remain with my name, so husband can change his name to ours if he is that bothered or just keep his name (recommended)

All these double barrelled names are going to create some amazing name combinations in future generations!

Do you think so, Hee - I sort of assume they'll do what the Spanish do, or whatever works for them, really. My kids will have options, and I have no problem if a child wants to pass either their maternal or paternal side of their name to one of their kids.

What I do object to is the assumption that the father's name is of primary importance when it comes to naming the child. It's fine to talk about what works for individual families - or would be if there was anything approaching equality in how kids are named, but there's not.