What surname do your children have?

[AmberTheCat]

Following on from the 'Changing my name' thread, I'm interested in what surnames those of us who have children have chosen to give them, and why?

My children have my dp's surname. We're not married, and I felt that people would be more likely to assume that they were my children, and question whether they were his, if they had my name. Not a particularly feminist argument, but one that felt important to me (dp didn't really mind either way).

Darkside. if you arent happy change it!

She is only 4 weeks, insist back!

Yes, Darkside, do think about changing it back!

weatherall, "I've NEVER heard of a man saying "don't give the DC my name, it's shite" - read my post, that's what dh said about naming ds (well, not shite, but boring).

We're married, I didn't change my name. The kids got DH's name. We're being traditional Scottish! It's not a problem having a different name to the kids and they all cope with it fine.

MIL is from South America, there everyone has their mother and their father's surname names. The male name gets carried down the generations though so e.g. Miss Smith-Wood and Mr Brown-Jones would get married, keep their own names, and their children would be Miss/Master Brown-Smith. So DH has an additional surname from when he lived in south america that he hasn't really used since he came to the UK.

In these threads I do think it's funny how many people don't realise that the English way of doing surnames is just that, one country's solution, lots of countries have different ways of doing it (e.g.the russian male and female surnames or the Icelandic -son or -dottir ending to surnames) without confusion.

Just his name. We were married and although I kept my name I did strongly feel he should have his dad's name. This is because his dad isn't English and I felt that with DS growing up here it was important that he was given a clear signifiers of his non English identity. Also, in his dad's culture it's literally unheard of for children to have the mother's name unless she is raped or abandoned so it was just so important to him that I didn't want to challenge that. I chose to have a child with someone from a very different culture and accepted that some compromises would be necessary.
I don't regret it for a minute, he loves his name and it really helps him to fit in when he spends time in his dad's country which considering he doesn't speak much of the language, and appears Caucasian, is pretty significant.

I'm coming across an odd prejudice recently - I am 5 years separated from XH. I haven't changed my name, nor do I plan to. The children have the family name, and I have never understood the concept that I was somehow renting or borrowing "his" name for the duration of the marriage.

As far as I'm concerned, it's my name. Getting a lot of though, and apparently XH's GF doesn't like it. I use Ms, but I always did.

I've seen that a lot. The 'why didn't she change back' opinion. As far as I am concerned, I changed my name. I didn't 'take' my husband's name. And I certainly didn't borrow it.

My major reason for changing my name was to have a whole family name in future (and, pre-MN, I just didn't consider more creative and feminist ways of achieving this). I hope it never happens, but if DH and I ever separate, even if he has betrayed my trust in the most awful way and I can only just bear to be civil for the sake of the children, I will not see it as 'his' name to change away from. I will see it as my name.

I'm guilty of thinking "why doesn't she change back?" - but only where there are no children involved. I completely get it where there are children involved and you want to keep the same surname as them.

However I suppose because I view changing names from a different perspective as someone who has decided to change their name, I don't quite get why you'd keep the surname from (and using an example from my own experience) a brief and failed marriage where there were no children, when you have happy ties with your own family.

But I do appreciate that is the view of someone who wouldn't have changed their own surname under any circumstance.

I tend to wonder why people don't change back, although I have never asked anyone, but like Thurlow I am coming from a position of not changing my name in the first place. From that POV it seems logical to me that if you change it at the start of a marriage you'd change it at the end, I can't imagine ever feeling that a surname I wasn't born with was mine. Obviously I differ from many people on this.

Additionally I have no issues with having a different surname to my DCs, but clearly that is an important factor for many people.

My Dds have my name, we recently got married and their names will go my name, his name once we get around to it.

I can see that view - that the changing of the name is like the wearing of a wedding ring. In which case, why wouldn't you 'take it off' when the marriage ends. But, for me, that isn't how I see it. I see it as having taken and chosen a new surname which is as much 'mine' as it is DH's, and which is as much my name as my 'maiden' name.

I also don't invest much identity in my surname. My maiden name is a very common name (think 'Smith') that I don't feel marks me out or shapes who I am. My Christian name, on the other hand, is unusual and defines me in a big way. You can say my first name only and most people would only know one person with that name. I could never, ever, change my first name. So maybe that is part of why I feel the way I do. My first name is 'me'. My surname is more delineating which group I belong to - and I belong with my nuclear family more than my parents, if that makes sense. And they with me.

Ah, see I don't feel the same about surnames, I don't feel mine links me to other people, obviously quite a lot of my family have it as well, but I don't feel any less connected with the ones that don't, which includes my DH and DCs. See, it seems to me that if a surname does make you feel linked to a group of people then that's a bit of a contradiction as for most people they are going to be closer to their own family than their ILs, and yet have the ILs name.

Mine's not as common as Smith but it's very run of the mill, however it's an integral part of me and I could never imagine changing it - if I did I think I would always feel as though the other surname was just a courtesy title.

Oh I don't feel that my name links me to my in-laws . I don't see the contradiction really. It's not that the name links me to people as such (my old name would have linked me with a good few thousand people including an old teacher and quite a number of colleagues). It's more than I like the symbolic link of sharing a name with my husband and children. I like the fact that we are the X's. I'd feel the same if was a new name we'd picked together (only I didn't blooming well think of that idea at the time).

I don't mind if someone collectively refers to us as the Xs, but I would never refer to us that way myself and it would feel totally wrong to use another surname as an individual. I can see why other people do it but as far as I am concerned my birth surname is for life.

You've just made me think, Penguin, that's another reason why I would never change my surname if DP and I got married (which is extremely unlikely): to me, that would link me to my ILs and I wouldn't personally want to do that. I'd feel that I was rejecting my family in favour of his, and I don't particularly get on with the ILs.