I'm a newly married man and agonising about what we should do about surnames.

[MaleMan81]

My wife and I got married a few months ago. She hasn't changed her surname to mine, and I've been saying to her that I'm not sure I agree with the idea of a woman taking a man's name. And that's how we have left it.

I think we both would be very happy with this decision if children were never going to be part of the picture.

However she recently became pregnant, and although we are both thrilled and excited, I have started to think that if we are going to become a family it would make us all feel more united if we both had the same surname as our child. My wife agrees with this.

So the options as I see it are - she takes my name, I take her name, or we do that terribly modern thing of meshing together our surnames to make a whole new name!

Now I would like to think of myself as a thoroughly enlightened man who is a feminist, but the problem I'm having is that her surname sounds a tiny bit silly, and is the kind of name that would be gift to bullies in any environment. I don't want to write her actual name, but a surname that would provoke a similar reaction might be something like "Awkwardly". What is worse is that my first name rhymes with her surname, which would give me a name which would at the very least cause raised eyebrows I imagine.

In comparison my surname is more normal with no real meaning, and is something along the lines of "Bailey".

The only meshed version of our names that really scans property actually sounds even worse than her surname, and not something I would want to saddle a child with.

So that leaves me favouring my own surname simply because it sounds more normal, and works better with both our first names. And to be fair my wife has said that she was a bit embarassed by her surname as she was growing up, although now she is fine with it.

I would like to think that if it was her with the normal sounding name and me with the odd name, then I would be happy to change my name to hers. But I'm worried that subconsciously I am simply imposing my name on her as is "tradition" and automatically favouring my own name.

I am also aware that her taking my name is the "normal" and "expected" thing to happen, and is the easy option in terms of acceptance in society. And I must also admit that I am generally a quiet person who doesn't like to draw attention to myself - which is exactly what would happen if I did what is seen (by society at least) as something reasonably radical like taking my wife's name.

I'm just confused and going around in circles now. What have others done?

Blistory, because they decided that surname worked better, maybe?

I think it's odd that a lot of people seem to assume that a woman who is confident/principled enough etc to decide that she won't either get married or change her name, which still goes against current norms, then just rolls over and lets the DC have their dad's surname without any discussion about it

Kids have DH's surname because there are only so many things I have the energy to fight for! It is going against convention to give DCs your surname (especially if you're married) and I decided to let this one slip :)

"The idea is choice."

No, the idea is equality.

Traditionally, children born outside of marriage did not take the father's surname. Only legitimacy conferred that 'benefit' so it's a relatively recent thing to be happening.

And if people are prepared to go against tradition for naming children, why not for themselves ?

"And if people are prepared to go against tradition for naming children, why not for themselves?"

One of the weird things about traditions is the way they seem to always be interpreted in a way that suits what a man would prefer.

So the supposed tradition is now that children should always be named for their father, regardless of marriage.

So now you can refuse to marry your partner and bully her into calling her children by a name you refuse to allow her to share.

We're not married but kids have DPs surname. He's an only child so wanted his name to go on whereas I have 3 brothers.

It doesn't bother me. If we got married I would probably take the second part of his surname but ignore the first part as it sounds too much like bastard! I use the second part for the DCs but legally they have both bits.

I don't like my surname. It's the same as the first name of a 80s has been who was known only by her first name and too many people assume it's my first name.

I am so glad my DH's surname is one letter away from my Grandmother's maiden name, same pronunciation.

I changed my name, DC have the same name, we are all DH's surname. Except I don't see it as DH's surname, its the name of the strongest woman I have ever met, so it was a total no brainer for me.

OP I would change both surnames to something you both like.

I like the idea of all the family having the same name. You have the "better" name for the reasons you have outlined so I think you should all have that as a family name if your wife is ok with that.

The reason I ask about giving children their father's surname (and this is FWR after all) is that the only explanations I've ever had are :-

a ) it's tradition - well, not outwith marriage it's not
b ) I wanted him to feel involved
c ) I got to carry the baby so it's only right that the father gets recognition.

b & c seem to be putting the wishes or the feeling of the father against those of the mother. Biology dictates that women get pregnant and give birth, it's not something that women then need to make up to men by giving them the right to impose their identity on children.

I couldn't care less what surname a child has but am intrigued that people reject one tradition but support another when both stem from men determining whether to accept women and their offspring as their possessions and signifying this to all by giving them the protection of his name. Or denying it as the case may be.

"But their mother's surname would have been her father's.

So not hers"

That applies equally to the father's surname surely?

It would have been his father's. So not his.

So why use either of them?

TheNightIsDark I am thinking either Tiffany or Sonia??

"But their mother's surname would have been her father's.

So not her's."

Oh, God, not this again! Of course it's her name- it's what she's been called all her life and is part of her identity. It is who she is. Women don't exist in limbo until marriage, you know. It would be just as logical to say that the man's name isn't his, it's his father's.

as has been said, wife's name was her father's name. So go back a bit further to wife's maternal grandmother and use her name.

Fourth option is to invent/choose a surname.

I disagree that a woman's surname is less of her own as it was given to her by her father. Your husband's surname is equally his fathers.

You've already found the solution that works best for you all, by the sounds of things, so go with that.

I get what people are saying about the "strange" surnames all belonging to women! I did get teased about mine constantly at school, though, because it genuinely was /is unusual as a surname, while being in common usage as a noun (for an everyday item). That's what made it sound silly. Most people had never heard of it as a name, either, so it was constantly written down wrongly & / or people assumed I was saying something else & would just write a different name that sounded similar(ish).

I daresay that altered the way I felt about it. And possibly the fact that I've grown fond of it again in hindsight is because so much time has passed & I've forgotten what a pain it was at the time! Or maybe it was just a bigger part of my identity than I realized.

Whatever the case, if I could go back 14 years to when I was married & make the decision again, I wouldn't change my name. Still don't know what we'd do about the children. I really wouldn't want them to have a different name from me, but I think DH would have felt the same way - & as I said upthread, mixed / double-barrelled variants (of our names, that is) are awful.

You can't just see a child taking their father's name as supporting a tradition.

Baby needs a surname. Parents have different surnames. Choice is generally between the two surnames or hyphenation. Let's say hyphenation is off the cards because the names don't go well together. So that's then a 50/50 choice between two names. And if it's a 50/50 choice between two names, you can lumber one of those 50%'s with being "supporting tradition". Writing off the possibility of a father's surname being used is just as against inequality as presuming a woman will take her husband's surname.

I find it strange that anyone would want to change their own name.

But either don't change your names at all. Or adopt a totally new surname that you both like.

Funny valentine, it didn't occur to me not to give the DCs DH's name. I wish it had (kept my own name). We might have made the same decision but at least I'd've though about it.

Of course babies in the hospital had my surname which felt odd then.

Those who are saying they have brothers to carry on the name - what's the bonus of having a surname carried on anyway? Most surnames belong to more than one family anyway so still exist somewhere in England. Not to mention -what if those brothers take their wives' names?

Thurlow - that argument only works if we start on a level playing field and we don't

MrsDV, I agree with you historically, but we have to start from where we are and my name is the one I had for 30 years before marrying DH - it's certainly more mine than his would have been. I suppose inventing my own might have been more mine!