Your Surname and Your [Hypothetical] Kids

Herbal Deity

Prompted by this thread.

What does your surname mean to you? Is it something you're immensely proud of or just a hollow keyword which links you with the rest of your family?

When it comes to kids, would you be insistent on your children taking your name, and why? Would you be ok with giving your children a double barrelled name? Would you just not care?


To me, my surname means absolutely nothing. I love my family, but I'm not 'proud' of being born into my particular family. I feel that I'm my own person, not a part of a long line of people with my surname. As a result, I don't particularly care about passing my surname on to my hypothetical future kids.

I would like them to take my surname, but only for reasons of convention. I don't see the point in going against a reasonable and useful naming protocol. Should the mother of my hypothetical child be insistent on them having a double barrel name, or just her name, however, I would just let her give them her surname, as I think a double barrelled name is too long and annoying, and it doesn't really bother me.

Thoughts?

Imhof Tank

Only rather insecure guys, obsessed with being seen to be the one “wearing the trousers” in a relationship, would absolutely insist on their surname only for kids.

I was shocked at how the PI thread seems to have polarised into men v women debate.

source

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Only rather insecure guys, obsessed with being seen to be the one “wearing the trousers” in a relationship, would absolutely insist on their surname only for kids.

Not true, In my family i'm the only male in my generation, so if i don't insist on my kids having my name then my family name dies with me, and i don't want that to happen.

In my mind that's not being insecure or being obsessed with being the one wearing the trousers.

LegacyUser

foinse wrote: »

Not true, In my family i'm the only male in my generation, so if i don't insist on my kids having my name then my family name dies with me, and i don't want that to happen.

In my mind that's not being insecure or being obsessed with being the one wearing the trousers.

What if your partner does not want her name to die with her, if she is an only child etc? Why shouldn't a woman's name continue on? Why should she not keep her name and pass it on to her children? S

Imhof Tank

foinse wrote: »

Not true, In my family i'm the only male in my generation, so if i don't insist on my kids having my name then my family name dies with me, and i don't want that to happen.

In my mind that's not being insecure or being obsessed with being the one wearing the trousers.

And if you dont have kids and your name "dies" with you - would that be a major regret in your life? If yes, then that would suggest a certain insecurity on your part which will only be overcome when you manage to produce a male heir.

If not having kids would not be a major issue for you, then obviously you couldnt be that worried about your name dying out, and if that is the case, then why be so insistent on the naming rights?

Teferi

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Only rather insecure guys, obsessed with being seen to be the one “wearing the trousers” in a relationship, would absolutely insist on their surname only for kids.

I'll echo the last poster and say that this shows very limited thinking and is actually quite insulting.

I'm an only child, I don't want my name to die with me, I want at least one of my children to have my surname.

Khannie

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What does your surname mean to you?

It is something that was passed down to me by my father. I like it. It's an unusual surname.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Is it something you're immensely proud of or just a hollow keyword which links you with the rest of your family?

I'm proud of the family I've come from. I'm equally proud of my mothers side.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

When it comes to kids, would you be insistent on your children taking your name, and why? Would you be ok with giving your children a double barrelled name? Would you just not care?

I would not be ok with a double-barrelled name personally. I dislike them. My sister tried it for a while and ditched it in the end.

Thankfully I haven't had to face the double-barrelled thing myself. My wife was happy to take on my name.

liah

Not planning on having kids, but if I did, I'd probably keep my surname if married, but give the kids the husband's (or boyfriend's, whatever) surname. My surname is annoying to pronounce. I know it bothers me trying to explain the pronunciation to people all the time, so it'd drive any kid of mine equally nuts I'd imagine.

I do like it though. Just wish people would stop asking me how to say it.

/edit: could've sworn this was in AH! Oh well..

Imhof Tank

Teferi wrote: »

I'll echo the last poster and say that this shows very limited thinking and is actually quite insulting.

I'm an only child, I don't want my name to die with me, I want at least one of my children to have my surname.

The point I made was that guys insisting on their kids having their surname were wrong. Insisting to the point of falling out with the mother of the kids over the issue.

Also, maybe your perspective might be different when you actually have children (I am assuming from your post that hasnt happen yet - please correct me if I am wrong) - what I am suggesting is that while this may seem very important in theory, with people speaking dramatically of "names dying out", naming rights will not be that big a deal when your child is born.

LegacyUser

I posted that thread.
I am amazed there was such a reaction. My partner wants his name to continue and so do I. What's wrong with that? I love my name, I got it from my mum. She really instilled a strong independent sense in me which my partner has told me is one of the things he loves most about me. That's why the insistence (and it was a non-negotiable at the start before we really talked it out) came as a complete shock. Do men think women's names do not deserve equal status? Why would it bother you so much to be called by your partner's name? Why should the male surname be the default one? Tradition is all very well, but its past time this one was phased out.
As a woman I cannot stress how insulted I felt when he told me OUR children should only have HIS name. It was like my name was ok for me but not good enough for our children to have and I know that might be hard to understand but men seem to want their name to continue without having to justify it too much, other than saying its easier in the long term.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Double barrel names are ok for the first generation but what if your double barrelled son meets someone with a double barrelled name. This could go on and on until someone has 20+ names.

Dr Galen

wasn't a problem for me. Mrs Monkey was very happy and she says proud to take my name. A badge of honour she described it as. I wouldn't have minded too much tbh, I would have liked to have the kids take my name though.

For what its worth, growing up I had a different surname to parents, as my mother was a single parent for years, until she met my stepdad and got married. From the age of 7 til the present day, I've had to explain why my surname is different. I'm not ashamed of it now, but at 14, it was a pain in the hole. Kids take any opportunity to rip the piss, and can be very cruel. Just because your sensibilities as a parent seem very important to you, just think of your kids. If I had a chance to go back, I actually think I would have changed my name back then at 7, to save a lot of hassle in the years growing up.

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Double barrel names are ok for the first generation but what if your double barrelled son meets someone with a double barrelled name. This could go on and on until someone has 20+ names.

I suspect too that once the child grows up and eventually chooses one of them, and should s/he choose the maternal surname that the father will be non to pleased that the future generations will not carry his name but will carry his inheritance, especially if its the last name of an ex.

Imagine saying to your ex "one day a so and so [insert mother's surname] is going to own your land!"

Herbal Deity

Works the other way round too, I guess, the woman could be the one owning the land...

whatdoicare

I'm a girl (soon to be married), I love my name and the history behind it and I also love my husband to bes' name. He wanted me to keep my name and I felt I wouldn't be "married" if I didn't take his name. (Not a view for everyone, just my own personal feeling, for myself plus I'm excited to be a Mrs!)
A good friend of mine made a brilliant suggestion, to change my surname to a middle name. This way, when I have my hypothetical kiddies, I have the choice of giving them my name as a middle name too- although I probably won't, my attachment to my surname is purely a personal one and my love of Irish history and then I also avoid the double-barrell situation.
Win, win!:D

metrovelvet

It gets comical. Aside from my own little ones eight syllable surname, I have a cousin in Spain who's surname is the equivalent of Gomez de Dowdall.

Giselle

whatdoicare wrote: »

A good friend of mine made a brilliant suggestion, to change my surname to a middle name. This way, when I have my hypothetical kiddies, I have the choice of giving them my name as a middle name too-

AFAIK, you can't legally give both surnames as a double barrel surname, the mothers name is usually a middle name whether you like it or not (or fathers if his name comes first in the faux double barrell)

John Smith-Jones is still John Jones, with Smith as the middle name.

I have no issue with taking my imaginary husbands name, I don't think its sexist, I don't think its demeaning, I don't think its unequal, and I don't think him liking the idea makes him a sexist caveman either. Its a tradition, and a nice one imo.

Mrmoe

I like my own surname and the history associated with it. I would also like my kids to have that name and be proud of the history associated with it. However if they chose not to keep it I wouldn't mind either as long as the know about their heritage.

Thomas828

Here's an interesting fact: China is a patriarchal society, but their character for surname, xing, is made up of two others, 'woman' and 'born of'. So surname means 'born of woman'. This suggests that way back in the distant past, i.e. before 2500 B.C., people got their surname from the mother, and not the father.

whatdoicare

Giselle wrote: »

AFAIK, you can't legally give both surnames as a double barrel surname, the mothers name is usually a middle name whether you like it or not (or fathers if his name comes first in the faux double barrell)

John Smith-Jones is still John Jones, with Smith as the middle name.

I have no issue with taking my imaginary husbands name, I don't think its sexist, I don't think its demeaning, I don't think its unequal, and I don't think him liking the idea makes him a sexist caveman either. Its a tradition, and a nice one imo.

I think there are two ways to get yr double barrel name, from the bit of research I did ages ago -

The middle name hyphenated route and then there is the husband changing his name via deedpoll three months before the wedding so the girl marries into it route (a more complicated route but the double barrel surname is then a true recognised surname)
I'd say the majority of people go the middle name route and the husband doesn't include the name in his name.

Nevyn

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

For what its worth, growing up I had a different surname to parents, as my mother was a single parent for years, until she met my stepdad and got married. From the age of 7 til the present day, I've had to explain why my surname is different. I'm not ashamed of it now, but at 14, it was a pain in the hole. Kids take any opportunity to rip the piss, and can be very cruel. Just because your sensibilities as a parent seem very important to you, just think of your kids. If I had a chance to go back, I actually think I would have changed my name back then at 7, to save a lot of hassle in the years growing up.

Contrary wise, my kids have their father's surname and as he and I never married I never took his name. My daughter asked could she take my name if she wanted to and I told her when she is older if she wants to she can.
They don't have an issue with my and their surnames being different at all.

Both kids get fed up with people assuming I am Mrs thiersurname, and roll their eyes when it happens. They just put it down to people being dumb and not thinking.

Pretty_Pistol

Giselle wrote: »

I have no issue with taking my imaginary husbands name, I don't think its sexist, I don't think its demeaning, I don't think its unequal, and I don't think him liking the idea makes him a sexist caveman either. Its a tradition, and a nice one imo.

Agree with this.

I just don't see taking a guys surname and giving it to the children as a big issue. It would take a while to get used to but other than that I'd have no problem. That is unless it's an unfavourable surname like Hoare (don't mean to offend Hoares out there ) or if it really didn't go with my first name. Also I have brothers so they can pass down the family name.

I'm glad I didn't get my Mams maiden name it's awful!

Imhof Tank

Giselle wrote: »

AFAIK, you can't legally give both surnames as a double barrel surname, the mothers name is usually a middle name whether you like it or not (or fathers if his name comes first in the faux double barrell)

.

On this point, you dont know what you are talking about unfortunately. Its a matter of putting down the 2 parents surnames, hypenated or not, in the surname box of the birth registration document

I have done this twice by the way

Imhof Tank

whatdoicare wrote: »

I think there are two ways to get yr double barrel name, from the bit of research I did ages ago -

The middle name hyphenated route and then there is the husband changing his name via deedpoll three months before the wedding so the girl marries into it route (a more complicated route but the double barrel surname is then a true recognised surname)
I'd say the majority of people go the middle name route and the husband doesn't include the name in his name.

WRONG - Jaze lads, all you have to do is just fill out a form in the hospital with the 2 names combined as the surname.

krudler

Me and my gf were talking about this just last night, I brought it up after reading the pi thread, she said she'll most likely take my name if/when we ever get married but would like one of the kids to have her name, say if we had a girl and boy, girl gets her, boy gets mine. This seems a bit awkward to me tho, hearing that your two kids have two different surnames just suggests previous kid from divorce/parents not getting on/family issue to me. In the long run it doesnt really matter what other people think but i imagine itd be a pain having to explain the different surname thing to people all the time.

She jokingly suggested I take her name if we got married, that'd be a definite no from me, thats signing yourself up for a lifetime of being whipped jokes and explanations.

LegacyUser

krudler wrote: »

She jokingly suggested I take her name if we got married, that'd be a definite no from me, thats signing yourself up for a lifetime of being whipped jokes and explanations.

But its ok for you to whip her by having her take your name.
I am shocked at the attitude of Irish men. It really proves we haven't moved on in this country at all. What is with the pride about your name? It makes me realise how backward the mentality of men in this country is.
Krudler, I feel sorry for your partner if you want to whip her into shape but she has to put up with this nonsense from you.

metrovelvet

I had a boyfriend who said if we ever married he would want my name. He thought mine was nicer and would help his writing career. And he was an only son too.

Imhof Tank

Imhof Tank wrote: »

The point I made was that guys insisting on their kids having their surname were wrong. Insisting to the point of falling out with the mother of the kids over the issue.

But surely if the "guy" is insisting to the point that he is falling out with the mother, then the mother must be equally Insistent? So why is it that the man is wrong?

Personally, there was never a question that my children (and I) would take my husbands name. It's a tradition that of course has sexist roots but that I personally don't view as sexist. I grew up with my parents and my siblings all having the same surname as me and I like it. I like that we are "the smith family".

Khannie

Deleted User wrote: »

But surely if the "guy" is insisting to the point that he is falling out with the mother, then the mother must be equally Insistent? So why is it that the man is wrong?

Really good point.

Imhof Tank

Deleted User wrote: »

But surely if the "guy" is insisting to the point that he is falling out with the mother, then the mother must be equally Insistent? So why is it that the man is wrong?

".

Not necessarily - if the father was insistent that the kids took his name only, and the mother wasnt insistent on her surname but wanted for example a double barrell, then that could lead to a falling out and I would consider the mother to be less at fault.

Anyway, the OP asked "would you be insistent .........." - this had to have been directed at the men given the forum he posted in, so really this is about the guy's attitude rather than whether his partner is equally wrong or whatever.

Imhof Tank

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Not necessarily - if the father was insistent that the kids took his name only, and the mother wasnt insistent on her surname but wanted for example a double barrell, then that could lead to a falling out and I would consider the mother to be less at fault

I see your point, but that's not what I read from the post I quoted.

Anyway, the OP asked "would you be insistent .........." - this had to have been directed at the men given the forum he posted in, so really this is about the guy's attitude rather than whether his partner is equally wrong or whatever.

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't give my opinion on the subject because I'm not a man?

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

But surely if the "guy" is insisting to the point that he is falling out with the mother, then the mother must be equally Insistent? So why is it that the man is wrong?

Personally, there was never a question that my children (and I) would take my husbands name. It's a tradition that of course has sexist roots but that I personally don't view as sexist. I grew up with my parents and my siblings all having the same surname as me and I like it. I like that we are "the smith family".

Thats pretty much it, if all the women who see it as a silly tradition were told that their future husband didnt want to get married in a church or have a honeymoon or a hundred other things that are "silly traditions" in married life they'd probably kick up a mountain of fuss.

Most guys are under no illusion that the wedding itself is more about the bride than the couple, she'll get to make the majority of decisions,all we have to do is turn up in the majority of cases. another example of a "silly tradition" is having the wedding itself in the brides home town/area, I know plenty of people who have gotten married like this, I'd have no issue with it as my gf lives in a really nice part of the country, so if her and the kids taking his name is the one thing he gets to stick to his guns about then whats the big deal?

Imhof Tank

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't give my opinion on the subject because I'm not a man?

Not at all, but the "subject" is whether men would be insistent on their kids having their surnames and why

keane2097

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Only rather insecure guys, obsessed with being seen to be the one “wearing the trousers” in a relationship, would absolutely insist on their surname only for kids.

Don't you just love it when somebody comes along and speaks for the whole world :rolleyes:

Imhof Tank

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Not at all, but the "subject" is whether men would be insistent on their kids having their surnames and why

And, as with most threads on boards, the question doesn't just have a yes or no answer, it is followed with a "discussion". I did not quote the OP's post, I quoted your post and challenged the opinion that the guy was completely in the wrong to insist on something to the point of falling out with the mother.

To say that the guy is wrong, just because the thread is about men is completely nonsensical.

krudler

keane2097 wrote: »

Don't you just love it when somebody comes along and speaks for the whole world :rolleyes:

Indeed, so apparently all our fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, not to mention uncles and people related to them by marriage were all "insecure", call it a generational thing if you want but its the norm when it comes to married couples in most cases.

I dont believe in god, but if my gf wanted a church wedding then I'd go along with it, because its about compromise. If I stamped my feet and demanded we get married in a registry office because a church wedding is a silly tradition and I dont want to be a part of it, then I'd be called all sorts.

Imhof Tank

keane2097 wrote: »

Don't you just love it when somebody comes along and speaks for the whole world :rolleyes:

Right then, tell me why Im wrong - why a guy would be entitled to absolutely insist to the point of it becomming a dealbreaker in a relationship - that his children would have his surname.

This is the scenario of the insisters -

her: honey Im pregnant, isnt that great;
him: that's great honey, of course the kid will have my name;
her: eh, what about a double barrel surname?
him: no way, I insist on my name only;
her: and what if I say no?;

him: look, I told you I was insisting on this, accep that or you're history luv:(

keane2097

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Right then, tell me why Im wrong - why a guy would be entitled to absolutely insist to the point of it becomming a dealbreaker in a relationship - that his children would have his surname.

This is the scenario of the insisters -

her: honey Im pregnant, isnt that great;
him: that's great honey, of course the kid will have my name;
her: eh, what about a double barrel surname?
him: no way, I insist on my name only;
her: and what if I say no?;

him: look, I told you I was insisting on this, accep that or you're history luv:(

What about any of that conversation proves that we're dealing with "insecure guys, obsessed with being seen to be the one “wearing the trousers"?

You're talking out your hoop tbh.

As has been already pointed out a woman insisting on a double-barrel name or her own name is being exactly as belligerent.

Imhof Tank

keane2097 wrote: »

What about any of that conversation proves that we're dealing with "insecure guys, obsessed with being seen to be the one “wearing the trousers"?

You're talking out your hoop tbh.

As has been already pointed out a woman insisting on a double-barrel name or her own name is being exactly as belligerent.

The conversation illustrates how ridiculous it would be for a man to break up an otherwise good relationship over his non negotiable position on naming rights for the couples' children.

I'm speaking from experience here. Have any of the other posters on this thread actually dealt with this issue in real life, or are people just sitting around contemplating what their opinion is on something which might or might not come up in the future?

seamus

Well ideally the discussion would have been had before children or marriage come into the equation, but some people don't get the luxury of planning

In my case, my wife has always been insistent that the children take my name. She hasn't taken my name (which I prefer tbh) but at the same time she wouldn't mind (and to a certain extent would prefer) being called by my surname in family matters, such as when dealing with schools or solicitors and so forth.

Although she's very much an independent person, she can be also quite traditional in some senses, and enjoys having people know that she's my wife. Maybe it's cos she's proud of me for some reason, I don't know. At the same time she will go through anyone who uses the term "wife" in any kind of belittling way when talking to her. She's a walking contradiction, but sure that's why I love her

So thankfully I never had to fight my corner for my surname, but I don't think I'd accept my kids not having my surname. I've a very close family so our surname to us represents unity and family and I would feel that changing my own name (no f'in way) or my children not having my name, would be a betrayal of my parents and siblings - it would be telling them that they're no longer all that important to me. They probably wouldn't think of it like that at all, but that's how I'd feel.

I can see how you can easily apply the same "betrayal" criteria to a woman, but it's a conditioning thing - women have by and large been brought up to expect that it's OK to change your surname without betraying your family. Men haven't.

keane2097

Imhof Tank wrote: »

The conversation illustrates how ridiculous it would be for a man to break up an otherwise good relationship over his non negotiable position on naming rights for the couples' children.

I'm speaking from experience here. Have any of the other posters on this thread actually dealt with this issue in real life, or are people just sitting around contemplating what their opinion is on something which might or might not come up in the future?

seamus wrote: »

In my case, my wife has always been insistent that the children take my name.

So by your logic Seamus's wife is what exactly?

An insecure woman who insists on not being seen to be the one wearing the trowsers?

Ridiculous, sweeping, baseless statements like your original reply to the OP are exactly why these sort of discussions become polarised and bitter so quickly.

Imhof Tank

keane2097 wrote: »

So by your logic Seamus's wife is what exactly?

An insecure woman who insists on not being seen to be the one wearing the trowsers?

Ridiculous, sweeping, baseless statements like your original reply to the OP are exactly why these sort of discussions become polarised and bitter so quickly.

Of course not - she wasnt insisting on the kids taking her name was she? Thats what we're discussing here - parents insisting on kids having their names - not parents defering to their partners wishes as in the case of Seamus's wife.

seamus

I can also state quite unequivocably that my wife wears the metaphorical trousers and everyone knows it.

Imhof Tank

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Of course not - she wasnt insisting on the kids taking her name was she? Thats what we're discussing here - parents insisting on kids having their names - not parents defering to their partners wishes as in the case of Seamus's wife.

Funny that, not long ago you were saying we were only discussing the father insisting, it appears you are not quite sure what is being discussed at all.

Moving Goalposts me thinks.

seamus

Imhof Tank wrote: »

not parents defering to their partners wishes as in the case of Seamus's wife.

As not entirely comfortable as this conversation makes me , she never deferred to anything. I had never told her what I thought, she stated that she wanted the children to have my name.

L31mr0d

My surname means nothing to me (my bank is always spelling it wrong anyway), thankfully my OH feels the same way about hers. The only reason she has mine is social convention, people will assume her last name is the same as mine by the mere fact that she is married to me.

Had my wife been so fussy as to demand that she keep her last name I'd of had no problem with it. If she insisted any children we may have had her last name also I'd of equally been okay with it.

However, someone who is that finicky about something as pointless as a surname probably wouldn't of been someone I'd of married. I'm all for challenging social conventions, but there's liberal and then there's being irritatingly obstinate without rhyme nor reason.

Imhof Tank

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny that, not long ago you were saying we were only discussing the father insisting, it appears you are not quite sure what is being discussed at all.

Moving Goalposts me thinks.

Keane2097 brought Seamus's missus into it - he moved the goalposts

Look, either parent insisting on exclusive naming rights over kids or else the relationship is over is insane. The original post related to the male perspective which is why my earlier posts referred to fathers/ men

DeVore

I'm Tom Murphy, my father was Tom Murphy, my grandfather was Tom Murphy. If I had a son, I'd want VERY VERY much to name him Tom and have his surname "Murphy".


DeV.

cowzerp

If my child had not got my surname people would assume that he may not be mine, that sucks and is a no go as far as I'm concerned, family tree's would be all over the place also with name changes so why change a good formula, Women and there girl power attitude annoy the shiit out of me changing stuff like this, and double barrelled names are embarrassing

LegacyUser

DeVore wrote: »

I'm Tom Murphy, my father was Tom Murphy, my grandfather was Tom Murphy. If I had a son, I'd want VERY VERY much to name him Tom and have his surname "Murphy".


DeV.

Suppose you only had girls and your partner wanted her name and her name only?

Imhof Tank

DeVore wrote: »

I'm Tom Murphy, my father was Tom Murphy, my grandfather was Tom Murphy. If I had a son, I'd want VERY VERY much to name him Tom and have his surname "Murphy".


DeV.

OK, but just to go back to the OP's post:

1. Would you be insistent about it, as opposed to very, very much wanting it this way?

and

2. If so, why?