# What surname to give first child?



## RIAD_BSC (7 Sep 2010)

Myself and my wife got married earlier this year. My wife kept her own surname - she felt very strongly about it. I never pretended to be over the moon about it, but all in all, I wasn't really that bothered and it became a non-issue.

Now, she is pregnant, and we are in dispute over what surname to give the child. I, as most fathers do, want the child to carry my name. She wants it to have her name, or a double barrel name with her name as the first barrel (for reasons I won't go into, a double barrel of our names would sound ridiculous with my name as the first barrel).

Now, I am very upset over this, and she can't understand why. She thinks I am some class of a neanderthal because I want the child to have my surname. But that isn't the case at all.

She won't listen to my arguments, which are basically:

- The woman gets to carry the child for 9 months, and to develop her bond with the child that way. For a father, passing on your family name is an important way to forge an immediate bond with the child. Women underestimate just how important this is to a man, and dismiss it all too easily. But to me, it is hugely important.

- The woman's status as mother will never be doubted by anyone - that is the way society works. But having my name is a public declaration to society that I am the child's father.... That, also, is very important to a man.

- A double barrel name sounds posh and pretentious  (see Ross O'Carroll Kelly), which is anathema to our values. Also, a double barrel with my name as the second barrel would inevitably end up with my name getting dropped anyway (my surname is a christian name to most people).

- A double barrel name would mean that my wife, I and our child would all have three different surnames. Some family, eh?

- Even allowing for the above, a double-barrel of our particular surnames would sound absolutely ridiculous. I would not want to inflict that on the child, all because myself and its mother had an argument over whether or not society is "patriarchal".

- My family name, which is highly unusual, will also die out if it is not passed on by me, as none of my siblings have kids, or are likely to ever have them.

Lately, she has been suggesting that we give the child the double-barrel name, and that we all change our name to this name. I almost choked on my cornflakes when she suggested this one..... I tried to explain how emasculating this would be, but she ignored my argument and called me a neanderthal again.

Am I a neanderthal, or is she being unfair by not even entertaining the idea of allowing the child to have my name?


----------



## Caveat (7 Sep 2010)

Given the arrangements name wise for marriage, double barrel is the only real answer IMO. It's what I would have expected anyway if I were in your shoes.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (7 Sep 2010)

Why would you have expected that? Just out of curiosity.....

As I tried to say above, a double-barrel of our names sounds absolutely ridiculous anyway....


----------



## Ceist Beag (7 Sep 2010)

I don't think you're being a neanderthal at all here. I would feel the same way about it. I'm fortunate enough not to have this issue as Mrs B took my surname so I'm afraid I can't offer any suggestions how to win your wife over but I can certainly understand your feelings on it.


----------



## pixiebean22 (7 Sep 2010)

You choked on your cornflakes when she suggested you all change your name but you have issues that she wouldn't change her name when you married


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Sep 2010)

On a practical level it probably makes sense to have the kids with the same surname as the mother - the passport checker is less likely to be suspicious if they are the same.

I'm with you on the husbands name for the kids, if its not then the assumption will probably be made that they are not your kids but are from a previous relationship of hers. If she can marry you and have your kids would it not be the most straightforward for you all to have the one surname.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (7 Sep 2010)

pixiebean22 said:


> You choked on your cornflakes when she suggested you all change your name but you have issues that she wouldn't change her name when you married


 
I had no issue whatsoever with her not changing her name when we married. She kept her own name, and I wasn't really that bothered at all, as I said in my original post.

It is the child's name that there is an issue over here.


----------



## Arabella (7 Sep 2010)

I'm sure that she has given you her reason for wanting this. Just as she gave you her reason for not wanting to take on your name after marriage. The fact that if this is so important to her she should have told it to you when ye both discussed starting a family. This would normally be when you both realised that marriage was on the way. By avoiding or skirting the issue, she was not being honest with you. If she is a feminist you should have realised this before now. She may be trying you out? Who knows. Is she opinionated or contentious on lots of subjects? Regardless, I think she is being rather mean on this.


----------



## lou2 (7 Sep 2010)

I don't think that you are being a Neanderthal but similarly I don't think that your wife is incorrect here either. The reasons you give in your original post aren't reason enough to give the child your name. The fact that the woman gets to carry the child for 9 months before its born is even more of a reason for it to take the mothers name! I'm no raging feminist but I really don't like the assumption that a woman takes her husbands name when she marries or that a child takes its fathers name when its born as this is blatantly sexist.


----------



## Caveat (7 Sep 2010)

RIAD_BSC said:


> Why would you have expected that? Just out of curiosity.....



Just based on your wife wanting to maintain her name after marriage - I would have thought based on that she's hardly likely to agree to using your name for the kids too easily.


----------



## TreeTiger (7 Sep 2010)

RIAD_BSC said:


> - The woman gets to carry the child for 9 months, and to develop her bond with the child that way. For a father, passing on your family name is an important way to forge an immediate bond with the child. Women underestimate just how important this is to a man, and dismiss it all too easily. But to me, it is hugely important.
> 
> - The woman's status as mother will never be doubted by anyone - that is the way society works. But having my name is a public declaration to society that I am the child's father.... That, also, is very important to a man.


It's not a "well, it's your turn for 9 months then it's my turn" kind of thing!
You seem to think that your child having your name is a public declaration that the child is yours, but "society" will somehow automatically know that your wife is the child's mother?  Why do you need this public declaration - and why should your wife not have the same right?



RIAD_BSC said:


> - A double barrel name sounds posh and pretentious  (see Ross O'Carroll  Kelly), which is anathema to our values. Also, a double barrel with my  name as the second barrel would inevitably end up with my name getting  dropped anyway (my surname is a christian name to most people).


Whose values is this anathema to? You say "our values", but if your wife is suggesting a double barrel it's hardly anathema to her.  Or are you suggesting that it's anathema to yourself and whatever "society" you association yourself with?  I occasionally work in schools and to be honest I think double barrel surnames are very common nowadays.



RIAD_BSC said:


> - A double barrel name would mean that my wife, I and our child would all have three different surnames. Some family, eh?


Having different last names doesn't make you less of a family!  I didn't change my name when I got married but my husband wanted our kids to have his last name.  I didn't feel strongly at the time but now feel a bit of regret that my kids don't have my name in their last name, so I can understand how your wife feels.  However, the fact that my kids have a different last name to me has not made us less of a family and was never an issue for them.  In any case schools etc. are used to dealing with single/divorced parents where children have different last names.
By the way, in Spain it's commonplace for women to keep their name and for children to be given both parents' last names.



RIAD_BSC said:


> - My family name, which is highly unusual, will also die out if it is  not passed on by me, as none of my siblings have kids, or are likely to  ever have them.


My kids are the last of my branch of my family, so not having my name is a bit saddening, but I still don't think it's right to force a parent to not give their child their name if they want to, as I said, I didn't feel strongly about it but your wife obviously does.



RIAD_BSC said:


> Lately, she has been suggesting that we give the child the double-barrel  name, and that we all change our name to this name. I almost choked on  my cornflakes when she suggested this one..... I tried to explain how  emasculating this would be, but she ignored my argument and called me a  neanderthal again.
> 
> Am I a neanderthal, or is she being unfair by not even entertaining the idea of allowing the child to have my name?



Yes, in my opinion, you are being a neanderthal.  You say your wife won't listen to your arguments but it doesn't seem like you are listening to hers.

You want your child to have your name (which you say is a Christian name to most people) but not hers.
You say the second barrel (yours) would be dropped because of it being a christian name to most people.  I can't see how this makes sense.
You argue that your child needs the same name as you for you to be a family , your wife suggests that all three of you could have the same double barrel name, you say this is emasculating.

So you want to deny your wife's name from your child. She's not trying to do that to you, she's trying to compromise.
But you don't want to compromise. You want it all your way.


----------



## circle (7 Sep 2010)

If your surname is a more common first name, you could use that for the baby's first name and then your wife's surname as the baby's surname. It'd have to work with the baby's gender but could be an option for you?

To be honest, I think most double-barrels sound weird to each of the people involved, but not to other people. You could use a double-barrel and then let the first name in the surname become a middle name if you didn't like it after a while.


----------



## Ceist Beag (8 Sep 2010)

TreeTiger the problem with double barrel surnames is what happens when your child (with a double barrel surname) marries another person with a double barrel surname and they have children - do their children take on a quadruple barrel surname?! Or do two of the parent's barrels get dropped - in which case you have exactly the same problem of agreeing which two to drop!


----------



## truthseeker (8 Sep 2010)

I got married last year and took my husbands name, it was never an issue at all for me - I dont identify myself as a 'name' - I am who I am regardless of whether you call me Truthseeker, Arthur or Mary. Im not particular about names so long as I know what I should be calling someone.

The OP has a situation where he wants his child to have his surname, and his wife wants the child to have her surname. I also laughed at the choke on the cornflakes comment because perhaps the OPs wife choked on her own cornflakes when she realised that the OP would want her to change her name upon marriage? Anyway, the only option here is compromise. 


Give the child a double barrelled name.
Give the child the OPs surname as a christian name and the wifes name as a surname (if gender suits for the christian name).
Give the child whatever christian name, and either the OPs or the wifes surname as the middle name, and the other surname as the surname.
Give the child a christian name, the OPs surname, the wifes surname and when the child is old enough allow them to choose whichever surname they prefer and use that as the legal name.
Give male children your surname and female children your wifes surname or vice versa.
OP - what are you going to do if you have a girl, and you get to give her your surname, will you be upset if she goes on to get married and take her husbands surname? Unless its a male child chances are the name is not going to carry on anyway.

I dont think your arguments on surname hold much water, and any argument you have - your wife will have the same one right back at you.


----------



## PaddyW (8 Sep 2010)

First off, he is not being a neanderthal for wanting what most people see as normal.  Secondly, he never once objected to his wife not taking his name when they got married, as he pointed out!

It's a tough one really, hopefully you can both come to some solution on it that suits you both, although it's hard to see where.


----------



## bren1916 (8 Sep 2010)

Hope you work it out mate....for what it's worth, I think your wife should show a little more understanding of how this is affecting you and how it may affect your relationship going forward..


----------



## Purple (8 Sep 2010)

Caveat said:


> Just based on your wife wanting to maintain her name after marriage - I would have thought based on that she's hardly likely to agree to using your name for the kids too easily.



My wife kept her name when we got married, though she uses my name as well, but the kids all have my name.


----------



## foxylady (8 Sep 2010)

lou2 said:


> i don't think that you are being a neanderthal but similarly i don't think that your wife is incorrect here either. The reasons you give in your original post aren't reason enough to give the child your name. The fact that the woman gets to carry the child for 9 months before its born is even more of a reason for it to take the mothers name! I'm no raging feminist but i really don't like the assumption that a woman takes her husbands name when she marries or that a child takes its fathers name when its born as this is blatantly sexist.


 
+1


----------



## foxylady (8 Sep 2010)

bren1916 said:


> Hope you work it out mate....for what it's worth, I think your wife should show a little more understanding of how this is affecting you and how it may affect your relationship going forward..


 
And would it not affect their relationship if she just gave into everything all the time to save his ego???


----------



## bren1916 (8 Sep 2010)

foxylady said:


> And would it not affect their relationship if she just gave into everything all the time to save his ego???


 
He 'gave in' as you put it, when she kept her maiden name after they married..it ought not be about giving in anyway, rather compromise.

Marraige is a constant work in progress between people who respect each other's wishes and feelings and after reading the OP it looks to me like the wife is the one who gets her own way here...


----------



## purpeller (8 Sep 2010)

I'm unmarried and childless, but I'd be of the same school as the OP's wife: I'd definitely not change my name upon marriage and would want any children to have my name (though I would open to double-barrel).  I am really struck by the amount of male friends who are incredibly bothered by the notion that hypothetical children of mine (not with them) might have my surname solely.  They are horrified, it's against tradition, society, it's emasculating.  My point is that Ireland has changed and tradition is not always a good thing.  In general, what's wrong with some people having their mother's surname?!  The only solution for the OP is to compromise.


----------



## circle (8 Sep 2010)

bren1916 said:


> He 'gave in' as you put it, when she kept her maiden name after they married..QUOTE]
> 
> No he didn't. 'Giving in' would be him changing his name when he didn't want to, or her changing her name when she didn't want to.
> 
> Neither of them changing their names (or both taking a new double-barrelled name) is the middle ground.


----------



## DB74 (8 Sep 2010)

How is it the middle ground if the wife got what she wanted and the husband didn't?


----------



## foxylady (8 Sep 2010)

bren1916 said:


> He 'gave in' as you put it, when she kept her maiden name after they married..it ought not be about giving in anyway, rather compromise.
> 
> Marraige is a constant work in progress between people who respect each other's wishes and feelings and after reading the OP it looks to me like the wife is the one who gets her own way here...


 
I dont think keeping your own name when getting married is getting your own way. Why do men think they are the only people who are entitled to have their name carried on down through the generations .


----------



## z104 (8 Sep 2010)

Fathers surname. tradition  ( unless you have a truly terrible surname or maybe she plans on leaving you and doesn't want to be reminded of you)


----------



## RIAD_BSC (8 Sep 2010)

Thanks for all the replies everybody. Firstly, I don't think it is sexist that I want my children to have my surname - I think it is pretty normal. I also don't believe I am a neanderthal, although I'm starting to wonder...

Foxylady basically sums up what my wife (and almost every other woman) seems to think on this issue - that this is just all about my fragile "ego" and that I am old-fashioned or patriarchal because I want my kids to have my surname.

But that isn't true. Some of the women contributing to this thread have clearly made very little effort to understand the psychology of fatherhood. Ladies, please just think about it for a second and try, temporarily, to see it from my side....

Treetiger, for example, completely dismisses out of hand the idea that if I have a different surname to my child, then society will look at me any differently. It will.... some people, rightly or wrongly, will assume I am not the child's father, or that perhaps I married a woman who had already had kids with someone else... That's not male-ego paranoia, that's fact.

If I, without my wife, was taking my child abroad for a trip and my surname was *Murphy and the child's surname was *Smith, (* not our real names) do you really think the passport control guy would not, at least fleetingly, wonder if I am the child's father and whether everything is kosher with me bringing the kid abroad? The role of a woman is never questioned, but the role of the man is open to more scrutiny and suspiscion. Treetiger thinks I am being stupid here, but every man reading this will know what I mean. It is intrinsic to being male and a father to want to have that recognised.

Women such as Lou2 say that because my wife carries the child for 9 months and I don't, that that gives the mother more rights to the child. But, Lou2, while I thank you for your comments, that's a totally specious argument. It is nothing to do with my contribution to the process - We all know damn well that a man can't trump that argument, because a man can't have children. So using the old "I carried the child so I get to make all the decisions'' argument is a bit of a low blow, in my opinion.

Simple fact is, society values motherhood above fatherhood, and all the "rules" and traditions (with the sole exception of surnames) are stacked in the mother's favour and recognise her pre-emptive surperiority in the parenting process. Fact.

If I wasn't married to my wife, I would have no legal rights whatsoever to the child. If my wife and I got divorced, she would automatically get custody of the child if she wanted it, unless she was insane or an axe-murderer. That's not written in the rules, but it is fact, and everybody knows it. My wife gets 6 months automatically of maternity leave, but there is no paternity leave in Irish law. The list goes on....

I am not saying I want to change all those things above, or even that I disagree with them. But ladies, please, why can't you just recognise that the surname tradition is the one thing that blokes have stacked in their favour throughout the whole process? And to some of us, it is very important - it helps form a bond that mothers take for granted. Women might sniff at that and ridicule it, but that's the way it is.

If nothing else, I am a little upset that she won't just allow the child to carry my surname, as a gift to me... especially seeing as she knows how much it means to me. Maybe she'll have a change of heart.

ps - My comments on double-barelled names hold: I think they are pompous and would sound particularly ridiculous with my name attached the double barrel. I'd rather the child had her name than a double barrelled name.

Cheers... I'll let you all know how we get on..... provided my wife doesn't decapitate me in the meantime!


----------



## z104 (8 Sep 2010)

Some suggestions

http://www.jimwegryn.com/Names/ChildrenSurnames.htm


----------



## fizzelina (8 Sep 2010)

RIAD_BSC said:


> If nothing else, I am a little upset that she won't just allow the child to carry my surname, as a gift to me... especially seeing as she knows how much it means to me. Maybe she'll have a change of heart.


 
TBH this argument to me is sad. RIAD has a valid point, he wants a tradition to continue on, double barrelled names are a new thing and not the norm in Irish family traditions and I think his wife should love him enough to give him something that really means so much to him. Ok she might not love it but if she loves and adores him then surely she would let the tradition of husband's surname stand? 
Good luck RIAD, you are not a neanderthal at all and your argument is very articulate and valid. And I hope there won't be any lasting ill-will on the issue that will overshadow the joy of the newborn.


----------



## truthseeker (8 Sep 2010)

RIAD_BSC said:


> Treetiger, for example, completely dismisses out of hand the idea that if I have a different surname to my child, then society will look at me any differently. It will.... some people, rightly or wrongly, will assume I am not the child's father, or that perhaps I married a woman who had already had kids with someone else... That's not male-ego paranoia, that's fact.


 
Just wanted to address this one - so what?
Anyone who KNOWS you will know the children are yours. Who cares what some random stranger who happens to see both surnames thinks? Even if the children werent yours and you were raising them - so what?

I just dont see any valid argument here. Its all a bit 'what will the neighbours think'.


----------



## circle (8 Sep 2010)

Your wife is clearly a rational, modern woman. You need to try to remove the emotion and have a rational discussion about what the optimal solution is for both of you.

I'd avoid using terms such as traditional and normal, they don't add anything to your argument and detract from some of the stronger points that you are making. 

'Traditionally' you wouldn't have sex before marraige, her parents would get to pick you based on your 'prospects' and she wouldn't work. You can't just pick the traditions that only favour men and argue to keep those due to some love of tradition!

The issues that sound really important to you (and that I think she would be more likely to listen to) are:
- People knowing that you're the father
- You bonding with the baby

Explain to her how important those two points are to you, without recourse to tradition, or but it's normal or anything like that and maybe draw up a list of pros and cons of all the options together.

Ultimately, this is a bit of a judgement of Solomon, you both need to want what's best for all three of you and not spend this time arguing!


----------



## dmos87 (8 Sep 2010)

My OH's mother retained her surname when they married. It wasn't a big deal, she liked her surname, he saw no issues with her holding on to it. To this day everything is still in her surname. Their kids have the fathers surname. 

I on the other hand, plan on marrying into this family and I have every intention of taking my OH's surname. Luckily for me I am not too keen on my own surname so I am more than happy to be gone with it and take his. To me its not about being a modern feminist (because I am on so many other issues). Its about being a family together as a unit and all members of that family recognizing that and feeling that sense of security. What about when the child gets to wondering why he/she doesn't have his/her fathers surname?

I do feel for the original poster, I completely see his side and I too would be upset. I also see it from her point of view but she is being more stubborn about it. The OP wants to feel included and the Mrs. is isolating him.

If you want my opinion - stand your ground. It's clearly very important to you and you are upset. Hopefully she is just being stubborn and will come around. 

Otherwise you could do what a man I know did - 

They went to register the childs name on the birth cert. They had decided on Elizabeth* as the childs name, but would call her Liz* day to day. Father had an issue with the full long name and just wanted her to be called Liz* so he filled out all forms using Liz* as the name and not Elizabeth*. Wife was p-ed off for a few days but got over it. 

*not real names, just a good example.


----------



## foxylady (8 Sep 2010)

RIAD_BSC said:


> Thanks for all the replies everybody. Firstly, I don't think it is sexist that I want my children to have my surname - I think it is pretty normal. I also don't believe I am a neanderthal, although I'm starting to wonder...
> 
> Foxylady basically sums up what my wife (and almost every other woman) seems to think on this issue - that this is just all about my fragile "ego" and that I am old-fashioned or patriarchal because I want my kids to have my surname.
> 
> ...


 
I would like to say I dont think this is purely about your ego and do understand where you are coming from to a certain degree. I dont think you should be concerned what other people think  as in you might not be the father sure couldnt they think that about your wife if the chikd had your name and once agan who cares what others think. This is not a valid point for wanting your child to have your name.

You go on about all the advantages your wife has over you , ie 6 months maternity leave and no paternity leave. I think ther is a massive difference as in he trauma a womans body goes through .

And the whole custody issue may seem unfair to you but to lots of men its ideal as they dont want the responsibility of caring for their kids.

Ultimately I dont think there is a right or wrong answer to your predicament but rather something you should discuss with your wife and come to a compromise on


----------



## DB74 (8 Sep 2010)

foxylady said:


> And the whole custody issue may seem unfair to you but to lots of men its ideal as they dont want the responsibility of caring for their kids.


 
That's some statement to make

Where are these "lots of men"?

Do you think those men who scale high-rise buildings in the UK dressed as spiderman etc to highlight their plight are happy to have all their spare time to themselves?


----------



## PaddyW (8 Sep 2010)

"And the whole custody issue may seem unfair to you but to lots of men its ideal as they dont want the responsibility of caring for their kids."

Terrible statement. There may be a few good for nothings out there, but the majority of men are only too happy to be a big part of their childrens' lives. Some haven't been allowed to, but most men given this opportunity would be only too delighted to have it.


----------



## truthseeker (8 Sep 2010)

PaddyW said:


> Terrible statement. There may be a few good for nothings out there, but the majority of men are only too happy to be a big part of their childrens' lives. Some haven't been allowed to, but most men given this opportunity would be only too delighted to have it.


 
While I agree its a sweeping statement, there is a difference between being part of a childs life and being the custodial parent.


----------



## Staples (8 Sep 2010)

My wife and I went through the same issue. She kept her name after marriage and I had no issue with that. Once you've done this, I think it's appropriate for any child to incorporate both names. After all, it's a joint production. It's not a "gift" from the wife to the husband.

We realise that some people have an issue with this but ultimately we don't care.


----------



## bren1916 (8 Sep 2010)

See what happens when you let women into bars!.....


----------



## DB74 (8 Sep 2010)

truthseeker said:


> While I agree its a sweeping statement, there is a difference between being part of a childs life and being the custodial parent.


 
What's your point exactly?

Every father I know wants to be more than just a name on a birth cert


----------



## PaddyW (8 Sep 2010)

truthseeker said:


> While I agree its a sweeping statement, there is a difference between being part of a childs life and being the custodial parent.



I was referring to them being delighted to have custody or joint custody of their kids. Unfortunately in a lot of these cases they are denied it by the mother who automatically gets custody.


----------



## truthseeker (8 Sep 2010)

DB74 said:


> What's your point exactly?
> 
> Every father I know wants to be more than just a name on a birth cert


 

My point is that this was said 





> _And the whole custody issue may seem unfair to you but to lots of men its ideal as they dont want the responsibility of caring for their kids._


 
_but this:_
_



Terrible statement. There may be a few good for nothings out there, but the majority of men are only too happy to be a big part of their childrens' lives. Some haven't been allowed to, but most men given this opportunity would be only too delighted to have it.

Click to expand...

_ 
is not actually addressing the custodial aspect of the first statement, which is not implying that men do not want a part of their childs lives, but do not want custody.

I am not implying that either idea is correct, but simply that there is a big difference bewteen custody and being a part of a childs life.

I know a number of people who have a child that the father has done a complete runner - not a part of their life at all - it does happen.

I also know one man who fought for custody of his child and won.

There are all sorts out there, I dont think sweeping statements cover all cases.


----------



## Ceist Beag (8 Sep 2010)

Staples said:


> My wife and I went through the same issue. She kept her name after marriage and I had no issue with that. Once you've done this, I think it's appropriate for any child to incorporate both names. After all, it's a joint production. It's not a "gift" from the wife to the husband.
> 
> We realise that some people have an issue with this but ultimately we don't care.



Staples that's fair enough but I'm genuinely curious about how you think it will work when your child has children of his/her own (possibly with the partner also having a double-barrelled surname)?


----------



## truthseeker (8 Sep 2010)

PaddyW said:


> I was referring to them being delighted to have custody or joint custody of their kids. Unfortunately in a lot of these cases they are denied it by the mother who automatically gets custody.


 
Sorry PaddyW - in that case I misread you as you never mentioned custody in the previous post.


----------



## PaddyW (8 Sep 2010)

That's ok truthseeker. The original statement was in regards to getting custody, I was just referring directly to the custody side of it. Crossed wires.


----------



## Staples (8 Sep 2010)

Ceist Beag said:


> Staples that's fair enough but I'm genuinely curious about how you think it will work when your child has children of his/her own (possibly with the partner also having a double-barrelled surname)?


 
That would be for them to decide. It might even be that our child would revert to using a single surname when he's older. It wouldn't bother me unduly if he dropped mine. There are times I wish i could drop it myself. It's an unusual one which requires frequent spelling.


----------



## foxylady (8 Sep 2010)

PaddyW said:


> "And the whole custody issue may seem unfair to you but to lots of men its ideal as they dont want the responsibility of caring for their kids."
> 
> Terrible statement. There may be a few good for nothings out there, but the majority of men are only too happy to be a big part of their childrens' lives. Some haven't been allowed to, but most men given this opportunity would be only too delighted to have it.


 
It maybe a terrible statement and I probably should have worded it better , however I did say "lots" and not all and I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would agree with this statement so I still stand by it


----------



## purpeller (8 Sep 2010)

> For a father, passing on your family name is an important way to forge  an immediate bond with the child. Women underestimate just how important  this is to a man, and dismiss it all too easily. But to me, it is  hugely important.



Surely when your baby is born, you'll bond with him/her regardless of surname?


----------



## xeresod (8 Sep 2010)

Niallers said:


> Some suggestions
> 
> http://www.jimwegryn.com/Names/ChildrenSurnames.htm


 

Fantastic site - some very funny suggestions!


----------



## Mrs Vimes (8 Sep 2010)

Ceist Beag said:


> Staples that's fair enough but I'm genuinely curious about how you think it will work when your child has children of his/her own (possibly with the partner also having a double-barrelled surname)?


I believe in Spain it is normal for a child to be basically given its 2 grandfathers name:
Mary Murphy O'Connor marries John McCarthy O'Sullivan and their child is called Priscilla McCarthy Murphy. Priscilla's child with her husband Manuel Rodriguez Ortega would be called Camilla Rodriguez McCarthy.
I gather it's not common for a wife to change her name on marriage either.
Sybil


----------



## lou2 (8 Sep 2010)

Women such as Lou2 say that because my wife carries the child for 9 months and I don't, that that gives the mother more rights to the child. But, Lou2, while I thank you for your comments, that's a totally specious argument. It is nothing to do with my contribution to the process - We all know damn well that a man can't trump that argument, because a man can't have children. So using the old "I carried the child so I get to make all the decisions'' argument is a bit of a low blow, in my opinion.


That's a bit harsh there RIAD_BSC. I was only responding to you bringing up this point in the first place. Don't think it's a low blow at all. I Never mentioned anything about women should get to make all the decisions either. Maybe if you were a little less reactive in your arguments you might get further! Good luck with whatever decision you make.


----------



## Ceist Beag (8 Sep 2010)

Mrs Vimes said:


> I believe in Spain it is normal for a child to be basically given its 2 grandfathers name:
> Mary Murphy O'Connor marries John McCarthy O'Sullivan and their child is called Priscilla McCarthy Murphy. Priscilla's child with her husband Manuel Rodriguez Ortega would be called Camilla Rodriguez McCarthy.
> I gather it's not common for a wife to change her name on marriage either.
> Sybil



Yes I suppose my point is Sybil that again here a tradition exists in Spain where the grandmothers name is dropped from the surname of the grandchild. What if one of the parents dug their heels in and insisted that they wanted their mothers name kept as well? i.e. in your example what if Mary or John insisted they wanted little Priscilla to keep O'Connor or O'Sullivan in the surname? It could get quite messy couldn't it!
As others have said here, I think it is up to each family to come to their own decision on this and I sincerely hope that the OP is able to come to an agreement with his wife that they can both be happy with. But personally I'm very much in agreement with his sentiments.


----------



## PaddyW (8 Sep 2010)

foxylady said:


> It maybe a terrible statement and I probably should have worded it better , however I did say "lots" and not all and I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would agree with this statement so I still stand by it



But there's not "lots" really. Like I said, there are a few good for nothings out there, we all know about them, we all abhor them. But there is certainly not "lots" of them, there's lots more fathers that want to be involved and a few who don't.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (8 Sep 2010)

Ceist Beag said:


> Yes I suppose my point is Sybil that again here a tradition exists in Spain where the grandmothers name is dropped from the surname of the grandchild. What if one of the parents dug their heels in and insisted that they wanted their mothers name kept as well? i.e. in your example what if Mary or John insisted they wanted little Priscilla to keep O'Connor or O'Sullivan in the surname? It could get quite messy couldn't it!


I guess it's easier when the tradition is that each parent gets one surname input (I assume they can choose to pass on their mother's instead of their father's)


----------



## BONDGIRL (8 Sep 2010)

My child was born and I gave him double barrell as we werent married (2 yr ago) We got married a couple of months ago and I was all for changing my name.. but get this... My husband wants me to keep my own name and he wants our child to have double barrell or MINE!  He said he isnt keen on his own name, although I like it, and he just wants me to keep my own identity etc!!!   HOw times are changing!!!!

So I suggest you just lighten up about it.. Its only a name and to be honest, there is so many worse things that could happen and a name wont matter at the end of the day.. 

my hubbie actually uses my surname for table bookings etc as its easier to spelll etc then his!!! 

LOL


----------



## Staples (8 Sep 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> My child was born and I gave him double barrell as we werent married (2 yr ago) We got married a couple of months ago and I was all for changing my name.. but get this... My husband wants me to keep my own name and he wants our child to have double barrell or MINE! He said he isnt keen on his own name, although I like it, and he just wants me to keep my own identity etc!!! HOw times are changing!!!!
> 
> So I suggest you just lighten up about it.. Its only a name and to be honest, there is so many worse things that could happen and a name wont matter at the end of the day..
> 
> ...


 
If my wife's name was Bond, I'd use that too.  Imagine the crack!!


----------



## michaelm (8 Sep 2010)

RIAD_BSC said:


> Am I a neanderthal, or is she being unfair by not even entertaining the idea of allowing the child to have my name?


Of course not.  Your wife should have changed her name upon marriage.  Not because she had to but because she didn't have to and as a sign of commitment.  That she didn't is her own issue but the children should have your name.  It's more practical and makes sense (leave double-barrel names to the crazy Spanish).


----------



## pixiebean22 (8 Sep 2010)

_"Your wife should have changed her name upon marriage.  Not because she  had to but because she didn't have to and as a sign of commitment."

_Can open, worms everywhere.

Her commitment is being called into question because she wouldn't change her name?  The OP didn't change his name, is he less committed to his wife?


----------



## z104 (9 Sep 2010)

The only real options are the children take your name or her name.

Forget the double barrel- Cruel in the first generation, mind boggling in subsequent generations. Whose name goes first?

http://www.jimwegryn.com/Names/ChildrenSurnames.htm


----------



## Tinker Bell (9 Sep 2010)

Very interesting and looks coldly at what could be an emotional choice. But personally I think that the wife of the OP has other issues.


----------



## DB74 (9 Sep 2010)

You could use your surname as the baptismal name

I assume the child will be baptised - you might want to ask the wife!


----------



## z104 (9 Sep 2010)

Tinker Bell said:


> Very interesting and looks coldly at what could be an emotional choice. But personally I think that the wife of the OP has other issues.


 

I think you could be right.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (9 Sep 2010)

I'm winning the battle. I'll keep ye posted.

Thanks


----------



## remey (9 Sep 2010)

I hope you get it sorted RIAD. When I married I didnt take my husbands name immediately. I did find it a bit strange to be honest, like I was losing a bit of my identity. (I remember years back in work, after her honeymoon a staff member sent an email to everyone in the company saying as of X date my surname has changed to Y, all other details remain the same. I was laughing thinking, why what else could change??)
I have an unusual enough surname but so does he. I like both but definitely not into double barrell.
As passport, drivers licence etc expired over the years I changed to his name as I definitely wanted me to have the same name as any children we might have.
I would never dream of saying that the children would be taking my name. Just wouldnt do it! We now have one child and I'm very happy for all 3 of us having the hubbys surname.

I still havent changed it for work and I wont be either.

Best of luck, hope you get it sorted amicably.


----------



## foxylady (9 Sep 2010)

PaddyW said:


> But there's not "lots" really. Like I said, there are a few good for nothings out there, we all know about them, we all abhor them. But there is certainly not "lots" of them, there's lots more fathers that want to be involved and a few who don't.


 
Lots might want to be involved but that does not ultimately mean they would like custody - big diffeence between the two


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2010)

RIAD_BSC said:


> Thanks
> Simple fact is, society values motherhood above fatherhood, and all the "rules" and traditions (with the sole exception of surnames) are stacked in the mother's favour and recognise her pre-emptive surperiority in the parenting process. Fact.
> 
> If I wasn't married to my wife, I would have no legal rights whatsoever to the child. If my wife and I got divorced, she would automatically get custody of the child if she wanted it, unless she was insane or an axe-murderer. That's not written in the rules, but it is fact, and everybody knows it. My wife gets 6 months automatically of maternity leave, but there is no paternity leave in Irish law. The list goes on....


Off topic but I totally agree; men are being removed from any real role in the family unit through legislative bias and blatant anti-men sexism in the media.


foxylady said:


> And the whole custody issue may seem unfair to you but to lots of men its ideal as they dont want the responsibility of caring for their kids.


 That’s a disgraceful thing to say. How would you react if a poster said that “plenty” of women are manipulative and heartless and leave their husbands to engage in affairs with other men knowing that he will have to pick up the bill? (not an opinion I agree with; such women are also a small minority.


----------



## shopgirl (9 Sep 2010)

Wait until the baby is born - they change everything!


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2010)

shopgirl said:


> Wait until the baby is born - they change everything!



Yea, women are never right after they have kids


----------



## RIAD_BSC (9 Sep 2010)

dereko1969 said:


> To be honest I get the impression from this "battle" that both you and your wife might have other issues that need addressing.


 

Dereko, if you are hinting that perhaps I have marriage difficulties because we are having a disagreement over naming our child, you are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Have you never had a disagreement with your wife about anything? If so, congratulations, you are possibly alone in the country on that score, and I'll look forward to seeking marriage counselling from you and your perfect marriage in future, if I ever need it. At the moment, I don't need any at all, thank you very much

So I would be grateful if you would refrain from posting this sort of personalised smart comment, such as the above, in future.

And thank you to Ceist Beag, and all the other posters who responded so genuinely to my original query.


----------



## DavyJones (9 Sep 2010)

My wife and I discussed this before I agreed to marry her .

At one stage she wanted me to take her surname as she comes from a family that is all female. That was always going to be a non starter. What we went for is, My wife can call herself whatever she likes and the kids have my surname.

I have noticed recently though that she is using my name more and more often. She is still goes by her maiden name in her professional life though.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Sep 2010)

This thread has run its course


----------

