Why do children get the father's surname?

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Where two parents have different surnames, it still seems to be the norm that children are given the man's surname - why is this?

I'm not saying that they should get the mother's surname, but it seems odd that dadsurname is the "default", especially given that if the relationship breaks up, they're far more likely to end up with their mum.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

Tradition? Which is rooted in inheritance and proof of paternity.

Not sure why, but my DS had my surname, and did it cause a stink or what!

But then I wasn't with DSs dad so kind of made sense.

I know kids mostly with the mums name.

My ones had dad and i got so sick of it,i changed my name and title by deed pole.

job done

DP is happy for our DD to have my name. I always asked myself the same question: why should she have his name?

DP's dad was disappointed and my ridiculous mother's convinced that we'll marry (we won't) and that we'll have take DP's name (we won't)!

I find it bewildering when women say that of course they wanted to keep their name (their choice) but changed it because they wanted to have the same name as their DC who have their father's name (via act of god presumably). Is it more controversial to give DC their mother's name, than for the mother to keep her own name?

Elephants, I know! I never understand that either.

A friend even said that I probably should give the baby DP's name, so that he "knows" she's his. So, the fact that we've been together for years and years and I would never have sex with anyone else doesn't come into it then! Amazing.

Not via act of god for me,

And they are not supposed to have my name, much to my fathers disappointment.But that is not how its supposed to work.

I used to know two families where the parents were together but not married; in each family the boys had their father's surname and the girls had their mother's.

DS has XP's name and this was why but if we'd had a girl I think I would have wanted her to have my name.

If I broke up with someone while pregnant I think I'd want the child to have my name too - I guess that at the time DS was born I still thought I was going to marry XP at some point.

LastOrders - who kicked up the fuss? His family or yours?

That's just bizarre CSS - but maybe as BoF says that's the root.

Is it the consolation prize for not getting to give birth? :o

Theincredible that's not how what's supposed to work? Why are they not supposed to have your name?

my two have my name, wasn't with EXp when ds1 born so it seemed sensible but was with him when ds2 born. i had found my own mind at that point though and knew i wanted them to have my name. not with exp anymore and he doesn't do any actual parenting so i am glad i made the decision i did.

It's and old tradition which is ingrained in society and used as proof of paternity.

But it doesn't prove paternity at all. What if someone wanted to prove maternity?!

His family, but they soon came round to the idea.

CommonSenseSuze Because i didn't want them too! I wanted them to have their dads name, and yes that is how its supposed to work and has done since names began.

I am so glad we live in a world of choice and I can CHOOSE to follow tradition. For that anyway

This is something that has always bemused me. I used to be Ms Speedy. I am now Mrs Speedy Gonzalez. My children are Little Mr and Miss Speedy Gonzalez. Makes sense - they have both our names.

Yet I cannot think of one cohabiting friend who has done the same - I find it odd since the woman in those couples has obviously not taken on her male partner's name.

I'm sure gay couples must be far more forward-thinking and egalitarian about this stuff. We heteros probably have a lot to learn from them.

Er so is it to remind dads that these are their children? Where couples are cohabiting for example, so that if things get rocky you can say look these kids are your responsibility - they've got YOUR name?

it is odd, but I think people take the easy option. I know I did. While DH begrudingly has accepted the fact I've taken his name, I would have had a fight on hands if I had not given DD his. This isn't a case of his name vs my name, but due to the fact that my surname is from a very horrible step dad I had and he sees it as his name whereas I feel I've made it my own (I was in the cadets, where you're referred to by the surname) and I had made peace with it.

I think (massive generalisation here) people feel that mother already has the bond with their child, but the father needs help. OTTH I also see it perpetuating the myth that the children belong to their father.

Maybe people take the easy option (MILs can be hard enough to deal with at the best of times).

Lol ElephantsAndMiasmas If that is why a person has given their children their dads name i think they probably have a lot more to worry about than this topic.
Perhaps shutting the legs may be in order! Just throwing it out there.

Now it's a formality and mainly done because it's tradition and is the default position for most people. However there are many things we do now which were done for different reasons in the past. Having the fathers name would ensure the children's inheritance from the father. And in a way it was used to show that these children are his a woman would always know that a child is hers whilst a father never could be 100% certain (until recently).

I think this is probably a major reason for why women were treated so differently throughout the past and even today depending on the culture. It's a paranoia of men's to raise another man's child unknowingly.

My DS has my name, stly because his dad and I were not on good terms when he was born. DS dad has well and truly proved himself a good dad since, and we tend to consider DS as having both surnames, but we are too lazy and disorganised to actually trot off to the registrar and double-barrel DS. This has led to a raised eyebrow or two at school governer meetings - I ordered suggested to DS dad that he would make a good governer, and of course at the first meeting more than one person wanted to know why he had a different surname to his DS and lived 20 miles away from the school...

But why does a child having your name indicate that you are definitely the father? It's not proof is it?

Agree saltatrix, read a really interesting article once that basically pointed out that men are/have been scared shitless of the fact that woman can procreate and there is no guarantee of paternity, and that controlling fertility has been at the root of all the clothing restrictions/locking up/honour killings/raping your enemies women etc.

I don't think it was about definitive proof it's just a name but it offered reassurance the father would feel that they are his. It may also have occurred to allow surnames to live on long after it's original owner has passed on.

No it is not proof no one said it was, in fact 1 in 4 kids are raised by a father who is completely unaware the child is not theirs, some of them probably have the dads name! Just because its not proof, doesn't mean its wrong to give the name.