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?

I am a pretty strong (stroppy) career driven type of gal who didn't even consider not taking dh's name and giving said name to dd BlingLoving. Still not sure that I understand why I should have considered it...

Well why should you have considered changing your name?

This has been interesting reading.

I now live in a country where women are legally obliged to keep their own surnames on marriage. If they wish to take their husband's surname, the matter has to go to court and it's a real hassle, so nobody bothers.

Regarding children, when a couple get married, they have to sign an agreement stating the surname of any potential children of the marriage. If a couple is not married the child takes the mother's surname.

I agreed that my children should have dh's surname, mostly because mine is foreign (English) and it made more sense to use a surname that worked in the local language (and because I hate the way they render my surname in the local alphabet with an extra sound that just sounds silly.)

Pomme, it's up to you. I prefer your approach to women who change their names because they don't like their own surname. But I do wish that even when women do change their names that they'd at least think about it for a minute first.

Are you in greece? That's really interesting. Do most married couples agree to give the father's name?

Yes, I'm in Greece. And yes, surprise surprise, mostly it's the father's surname.

We do have the advantage of not having to worry about a title, though. There is no need for an equivalent to 'Ms', as 'Kyria' in Greek does not imply marital status, it's just a woman's title.

I must tell DH this as he is Greek (kind of).

I thought Kyria was some kind of prayer - or is that Kyrie?

Sounds nice though.

There is an old prayer called the Kyrie,it starts "Kyrie eleison" which is translated as Lord,have mercy.So presumably kyrie=lord and kyria=lady??

yes, that is how they translate. (It's actually kyrios=lord, but kyrie is in vocative case). They also translate as sir and madam or simply as Mr and Ms

Pogle - you're cleeever

I quite like the idea of addressing god as "Dear Sir" :)

I think rightly or wrongly my DH would have been worried and upset if I had not taken his name against convention. I think he would have read into it something I didn't intend, and would have worried that other people would too. I'm not saying I was completely happy to change my name, but I took a pragmatic decision. If DC come along we will all be the same, which is nice.

What would he have read into it, do you think AC?

Some of DP's family appear to think I have somehow osmotically acquired his surname just because we've lived together for 10 years

My auntie Katie also appears to think I've hyphenated my surname with his, because of the kids' surnames - presumably she thinks we all have the same - but she's the only person I can't face enlightening, as she's (a) also the only family member who appears totally relaxed about my sister's same-sex partner and their children (b) a 70 year old Not Very Radical nun.

That's interesting about Greece. It's the same in Quebec - no one is allowed to take their spouse's surname. For a time most French children in Quebec were being given hyphenated surnames, but I have heard that the trend is subsiding somewhat.

EvilAnts I'd probably get it wrong if I tried to put my finger on it, I just think he'd have a feeling of disquiet, more in the case of the DC than me.

EvilAnts, I hope you didn't detect hilarity over the double-barrelling thing in the post of mine that you quoted. All I feel is curiosity (and perhaps some mild amusement at some of the possibilities that could ensue, especially when parents start to figure out how to get "their" name into the optimum position to not be the one dropped when it comes to the next generation of double-barrelling).

Actually, the family history thing probably helps to give me a particular perspective on this. It has reminded me that we are all the product of people with umpteen different names - I am related equally to ancestors with surnames Y, Z, A, B, C, etc, etc. as those with surname X. That makes the surname thing part of the small stuff I choose not to sweat.

I save my battles for the important stuff that matters to me. Like who chooses the contents of my dd's lunchbox...

If it small stuff, then why do so few men regard it as such? I smell a rat, as a said, when "coincidentally" it happens to be the men who make enough of a fuss to get their own way with naming the kids.

AC - sorry but I find this sad: "I'm not saying I was completely happy to change my name, but I took a pragmatic decision." Pragmatic in what way?

Someone mentioned earlier that in Iceland girls take the father's name followed by dottir. This is not the case. Girls take the mother's first name followed by dottir. So my daughter would then be DD Millysdottir.

Obviously it has not always been the tradition that people take their father's name as a last name. Lots of common last names refer to occupation, area of birth, physical attributes or landscape features. If this wasn't the case we would all be Johnson, Thomson or whatever, and we're not.

If people are concerned with equality then they they could double barrell. On marriage a woman would take the mother's part of her double barrell and the husband would take the father's part of his double barrell and they would combine those parts for the child.

My children have my last name, because it is nicer than DP's. If I had married somone with a nicer last name than mine, I would given the children the father's last name.

MillyR wrote - "Someone mentioned earlier that in Iceland girls take the father's name followed by dottir. This is not the case. Girls take the mother's first name followed by dottir."

I think most Icelanders use the father's name with a "son" or "dottir" ending. Some people use the mother's name instead of the father's name, typically due to family breakup.

Examples of prominent Icelanders :

women:
Katrin Jakobsdottir (father's name)
Gudrun Helgadottir (mother's name)

men:
Magnus Magnusson (father's name)
Heidar Helguson (mother's name)

My understanding is that Icelanders almost always use a patronymic. Traditionally it was a practical issue, to allow the same first name to be used by several people in a community, and also to link young people with a family. But then, if the mother were better-known than the father, maybe if the father had died young, a matronymic would be used instead. It really was just a way to identify someone, and they'd do whatever worked best. Maybe nowadays with divorces, some children do use matronymics if they don't have much of a relationship with their father.

Of course there is a Wikipedia entry:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name

EvilAnts, it is small stuff to me. I tend not to bother much about anyone else's view either way.

I didn't change my name because dh made a fuss. He didn't. I was comfortable with changing my name because it is still conventional to do so and because I felt no need to make a point by not changing my name, nor did I have any practical reason e.g. professional reasons, for keeping my name. As a result, there was no issue over what dd's surname would be.

T & V, I will ask some Icelanders at some point and get a fuller explanation of the choices available. I know various Icelandic women with the Mother's name taken, and that is not due to family breakup. Perhaps the whole thing is very flexible.

This has made interesting reading - it's cheering to see that others do think carefully about this issue; I also have various female friends, some of whom have kept their name on marriage but all of whom have named their child after their DH.

Having said that, I've done the same but for rather different reasons than most. I got pregnant by accident fairly early in our relationship when we weren't even living together, so we were discussing all kinds of decisions at the same time, like whether to move in together, where and how to live, DS' surname, etc etc. DH (we've since married and yes I kept my name) compromised on a number of important points for me, including that our household and DS would be vegetarian, even though he eats meat (and of course continues to do so outside the home).

We then discussed the surname point, I was all for flipping a coin as it was the only way I could see that was fair, but he thought it was a flippant (hehe) way to decide. We didn't argue about it, but just couldn't decide as it was important to both of us. In the end, I decided without pressure from him to offer to give it his surname - my rationale was that I couldn't have everything my way, and the vegetarian thing was at least as important to me. DS has got my surname as a second middle name however, so it's in there (we couldn't really double barrel as it was a really stupid combination!). I don't regret it, although I do get irritated having to explain to the doctors etc that we have different surnames.

I would welcome your (constructive!) thoughts on the following however: we're now expecting DC2. I haven't raised this at all with DH as yet, but I'm wondering about suggesting that it's fair for a second child to have my name, or alternatively, that if it's a girl, it should have my name or his if it's a boy. I think that would be fair, but my only reservation is whether it would be strange and annoying for the two DCs to have different surnames, e.g. constantly having to explaing to people at school in years to come that yes they are related, and no they don't have different fathers? What do you think?

Hi Rollercoasteryears, I have been wondering about what we would call a second child too. DD has my surname based on her being a girl, I think we would probably keep the same system so if we had a boy then they would have different surnames.

The way I see it:

a) these things only seem unusual if you have never come accross it before. So while they might have a bit of explaining to do, it'll go some way towards helping future generations make their own decisions that aren't just based on what everyone else does.

b) doesn't really matter what other people think anyway - I know DP doesn't feel strange that DD doesn't have his surname, although in fact she is the spit of him so no confusion about who the father is anyway.

c) Kids get teased. No matter what. If you think giving them the same surname will stop it happening - it won't.

d) Might actually be quite refreshing to have different surnames. When we were at school, my older brother was a very high acheiver, and I got a bit sick of people saying "oh, you're x's sister, you must be clever too". Having a different name would have allowed me to be my own person a bit more and not worry about living up to him.

Having said all that, I have friends who have said to me that they feel it's very important for siblings to have the same surname so they have a shared identity - bllcks if you ask me, I think it's more to do with how you bring them up and what you invest in being a "family", but obviously some (otherwise rational and intelligent) people have a bit of a mental block when it comes to this one.

Do whatever you think is right, it's no-one else's business.