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?

"Following that argument logically on, join, it's as wrong to give children their mother's name too. Sharing a surname, by many of the arguments on this thread, implies ownership."

But my argument is not, and never has been, that giving a name implies ownership.

And the argument about ownership, as I understand it, is that it was HISTORICALLy used to denote ownership.

So I'm not sure you're really following anything logically.

I have to say, the only women I know who have changed their names on marriage did so because they very much relished the thought of being able to change to a brand new surname! - and certainly didn't seem to attach any importance to carrying on a family name. They didn't seem to see it as the important thing. All wanted to change their names because they thought their H's names were more exciting, went better with their first names or in one case, she'd always hated her embarassing surname.

Maybe they were lying a little bit, I don't know!

I know a couple who chose a new name, and lots who kept their own name and double-barelled for the children (or who haven't married).

But women do effectively have ownership of children by default and legally.

A woman has to name herself on her child's birth certificate. She is under no obligation to name the father and he requires a court order and proof of paternity if she doesn't wish to add his name. So legally the child is of the mother but not necessarily of the father.

TBH one of the biggest reasons I didn't change my name was because I thought it was a massive pain in the arse to do so.

Irony is that its actually caused ongoing problems. For example relative sending cheques to the wrong name (sometimes deliberately in the case of my MIL), constantly having to show proof that we are married (not helped by fact we were married abroad), DH being called the wrong name (this has helped him see my point of view about changing names though), and various institutions not being able to grasp the fact that yes I'm married but no I have not changed my name (hello X Bank) and being quite rude about it.

I'd say it might, in hindsight, have been easier to change my name. But I don't like DH's and rather like mine!

I kept my name but the children took their father's name. Go with the best name for the children - they won't thank anyone for being called Sam and Katie Awkwardly instead of Sam and Katie Bailey.

"Surely any man who views women as equal and not as possessions will understand that her surname is hers and equally valid, and indeed, more practical as a choice of surname for their child? It all seems to be women having to accommodate men and their pride or sense of ownership."

In my case, my DH had no sense of pride about this. He suggested we use my name.

And I kept saying "but there's no more reason to use mine than yours" and he just said "but I like your name".

And I would say "but I like your name too".

If he had shown even a smidgin of chauvinism about this I would have dug my heels in.

But his Dad (an only child) had recently died and DH has no brothers and a sister who had already changed her name.

But the decision to use his name really was mine and not his. It was I who had the feeling that it mattered that his name be carried on.

We are creatures of our upbringing. I am certainly.

Buffy, that's made me Virgie Stanton. Which I LOVE

Join, many people's issue with the giving of a name is that it denoted ownership. If that's not the issue now, what's the issue? The tradition of giving the name relates to ownership. I don't see a distinction there, sorry.

Blistory, I'm sorry but your assumption there about the different roles parents will take in their child's life, an assumption which, if it is tied to a choice in names is taken in many cases even before either parent has had a chance to show what kind of parent they are going to be, is blatantly sexist to me. You can't on one hand say a man can't say he'd like his child to be named after him because society in general will assume that he isn't their father otherwise, and then on the other hand say a woman has more right to share a surname because society in general says she's more likely to be a better and more involved parent.

Your paragraph about what instrinsically bad parents most men are is based on huge assumptions and is implying general standards to specific relationships. I did not decide to be with my partner and have a child with him thinking "yeah, well, quite a few men turn out to be shits so I'll plan for the relationship to break up in about eight years time when he leaves me holding the baby, in which case the baby better have my surname..."

DP and I are getting married this year. Until babies I am not changing my name. On having babies I will take his name for my passport etc, and be known as this at school, but keep maiden name for work. We have thought long and hard about this, but we both have surnames with real meanings, and neither word is terribly nice e.g. Angry and Spite! Double-barrelling or combining sounds very silly. He has offered to take my name, but his name is much rarer than mine and I know he wants to preserve it. I was teased for my name as a child and dislike it. He would not mind at all if children had my name, but DSD has her DM's name and I know DP would like a child with his own name- plus I would like us to have a family name. Practically, for travel, and parents evenings etc (he currently gets called Mr DSD's-last-name by school) it would just be easier. So we will take the more traditional path, but have thought about it- we are not blindly following.

Blistory, I think the mother has to take the hospital paperwork to the registrar to demonstrate maternity -?

i added my husbands name but didn't lose my name

so i became Me myname hisname

and my DD is Her myname hisname with two surnames

I have kept my name. The children are [1st name] [ADH family 2nd name] [AngelaDaviesHair] [DH'ssurname]. In day to day life they are just referred to as [1st name] [DH'ssurname].

Although that means we've ended up doing the conventional thing, that's ok by me because we did it because it suited us, not simply to bow to convention. My name is in there, along with middle names reflecting my background, and because neither DH nor I wanted the double surname option really.

Olivette Archer - they are good pseudonym names it's making. I could write something decent as Virgie Stanton.

Thurlow, my views are based on reality, that doesn't make them sexist.

I could not agree more that men are equally capable of raising children as well as women. But the majority of them don't fulfil that role and child rearing is left, to a significant extent, to women.

It is however sexist to diminish the role of women because men don't get to take part in pregnancy, child birth and breast feeding. Women don't need to make something up to men. It's simply a biological fact.

I think there are a huge number of men who would like to parent equally and this is where I think that feminism is more supportive of men than others would have you believe. I would like to see men taking time off work when the baby is born, I would like to see men taking time off for medical appointments and in service days in the same proportion as working mothers. I would like to see men as having a choice to stay at home and not go to work simply because they are the higher earner. Until we address that, some men won't see it as their role and others will be restricted by the conventions of society. None of which really allows them to be equal parents.

So your knee jerk reaction that I am sexist is very far from accurate.

I'm not sure why any of those examples you give aren't possible? Men have a right to shared paternity leave. Men have the same rights to parental days from work as women. I also don't know many couples where men are the significantly higher earner in f/t roles.

It's not diminishing the role of a woman because men don't take part in pregnancy. To me, it's challenging the assumption that men are less involved or natural parents at the start simply because they are biologically incapable of being pregnant or breastfeeding.

Poor OP - has he managed to get a single word in since he started this?

Well Thurlow, I'd like to live in your world.

In mine, men might legally have those rights but that's very different from exercising them.

Well, blistory, as those legal rights exist then it's a problem within a relationship if a man won't exercise them, isn't it, rather than a societal problem.

I have an image of the OP standing at the back of a busy room going "oh... But... If I could just..."

I have kept my maiden name (hate that term BTW, I just haven't changed MY name!) DH kept his name, kids have DH's name. There wasn't a huge amount of thought re: kids surname - they needed one and I wasn't bothered that the net result would be me having a 'different' name.

DD1 is 4.3 now and so far I've had no issues with this. In fact she asked about it the other day when she heard me saying/spelling my name to someone and asked why it was different to hers. I said I was part of family [DH surname] but that my surname was [my name] as that's what I'd always been called. She accepted it at face value.

I really don't feel the need to have the same name - anyone that knows us/needs to know us knows my kids are my children. Anyone official that doesn't know but wants proof can look at a birth certificate.

Bloody Hell, its not easy it it!

To answer the question of what my wife thinks - we have talked about this several times, and never really decided anything. I think she would be happy to take my name, but I worry that deep down she would feel a bit sad she was losing her name. Really its me with the problem, as I don't really like her surname. I definitely have a stronger opinion on not wanting her name, where as she is much more amenable to taking my name - but is this a good enough reason to make the decision? I posted this thread to come up with more ideas to talk to her about.

The suggestion of just making up a random surname seems a little bit devoid of meaning to me, not to criticise anyone else who has done it - after all it is a very personal choice.

As for women who don't change their name, and their children have their DHs name, or people who give multiple children different surnames - aren't you always having tell people that these are your children, i.e its mostly assumed that children have the same name as their parents? The one thing my wife and I are in total 100% agreement about it that we definitely want each other and our children to share the same surname.

I don't think either of us like the idea of any double barrelling at any point, too many syllables!

However I do like the thought of her keeping her old name for some things, and my name for others. I didn't know you could have both names on your passport. I suppose its nice to be able to pick and choose which surname to use in any given situation. But those who have done this - isn't it sometimes a massive hassle having to remember what name you've used for which thing? And has it ever caused identity queries/problems?

Keeping a name by using it as a middle name I also like the sound of.

@FairPhyllis - I've heard that argument before, and I know that logically it kind of makes sense, but I also know that a lot of women disagree with it, in that they still feel their birth name is "theirs" regardless of the fact it reached them via patriarchal line of ancestors.

I know there is probably a lot of subconscious societal pressure being exerted on both men and women for the women to take the man's name, which is why I started this thread - It seems all too easy to do the "expected thing", and if we did go down that road I wanted to make sure it had been properly thought through rather than just blindly obeying "the rules". But also maybe it was to try an make myself feel less guilty considering there is a high likelihood that I will not do anything new after all, and my wife will end up taking my name...

Lots to think about.

Whoah! Sorry I'm not used to the speed of replies on MN!

There were much less responses when I started writing the post above, so apologies if I've missed out stuff - I'm catching up now!

I don't have kids, but I very occasionally use both names and the only thing I've had hassle with was Barclays bank.