Family annoyed over sir-name

eviltwin

McTigs wrote: »

Jaysus, what kind of parent would pretend to be okay with a dispute resolution but then secretly plot to stick it to them in the will. That's just pure badness.

Tell you what, if that happened to me i'd dig them up and kick them around the graveyard.

Have to say I would be even more miffed at blackmail than a parent sticking their nose in.

I understand parents needs to be respected but ultimately the name the child is given is going to be with them long after said parents pass on.

And I can understand tradition is important for some families but again when two people create a life together its not just one family who get to call the shots. The traditions the new family want to create are more important too.

The Corinthian

McTigs wrote: »

Jaysus, what kind of parent would pretend to be okay with a dispute resolution but then secretly plot to stick it to them in the will. That's just pure badness.

Totally agree. At the same time "it's none of your business" who they choose to put in their will or how much they leave to them.

Cuts both ways.

Big Bag of Chips

The Corinthian wrote: »

Totally agree. At the same time "it's none of your business" who they choose to put in their will or how much they leave to them.

Cuts both ways.

Absolutely correct. Adults don't get an "entitlement" from anyone.

Grandparents aren't entitled to name their grandkids, and adult children aren't entitled to anything their parents own!

It is nice either way if it happens, but there's no entitlement.

Edit: And I certainly wouldn't go along with decisions I wasn't happy with, particularly concerning my children, just to be kept in the will!

Think we're moving from the OP's issue a bit though.

The Corinthian

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Edit: And I certainly wouldn't go along with decisions I wasn't happy with, particularly concerning my children, just to be kept in the will!

Certainly not, but I never said anyone should.

I stuck my nose in because many were advocating a blunt "none of your business" approach to the grandparents, and somehow laying down the law like this is considered "dispute resolution" by some. It's not, it's insulting at the very least and depending upon the character and value system of the grandparents likely to result in a negative reaction - either now or in the future.

It may even be your way of pushing them away from involvement with your child, especially if there are other grandchildren. And TBH, that's not really their fault if they're more comfortable seeing another grandchild more because there they are allowed to express their opinions there.

So by all means be firm, but don't be blunt. There are better ways of letting them have your own way.

Think we're moving from the OP's issue a bit though.

I think it's relevant to the OP, because rather than bluntly laying down the law, he and his partner may choose a more diplomatic way to do this. After all, he and his partner are only 23 and 24, so it's more than likely that they might want to keep the grandparents goodwill - and assistance.

Presuming no compromise solution, such as a double-barrelled name, concessions elsewhere could be made twoards the grandparents. Religion, a middle name, or let them play an active part in choosing the christening event. Even phrasing that this is how the OP and his partner have decided to name this child in a less confrontational fashion, but that they respect their views, would help.

eviltwin

The Corinthian wrote: »

Certainly not, but I never said anyone should.

I stuck my nose in because many were advocating a blunt "none of your business" approach to the grandparents, and somehow laying down the law like this is considered "dispute resolution" by some. It's not, it's insulting at the very least and depending upon the character and value system of the grandparents likely to result in a negative reaction - either now or in the future.

It may even be your way of pushing them away from involvement with your child, especially if there are other grandchildren. And TBH, that's not really their fault if they're more comfortable seeing another grandchild more because there they are allowed to express their opinions there.

So by all means be firm, but don't be blunt. There are better ways of letting them have your own way.

I think it's relevant to the OP, because rather than bluntly laying down the law, he and his partner may choose a more diplomatic way to do this. After all, he and his partner are only 23 and 24, so it's more than likely that they might want to keep the grandparents goodwill - and assistance.

Presuming no compromise solution, such as a double-barrelled name, concessions elsewhere could be made twoards the grandparents. Religion, a middle name, or let them play an active part in choosing the christening event. Even phrasing that this is how the OP and his partner have decided to name this child in a less confrontational fashion, but that they respect their views, would help.

I think when people said tell them to feck off they were just using it as a figure of speech...I certainly wouldn't be rude about it but you have to make them know what will fly

Very interested in your last paragraph about making certain concessions to grandparents though, would you really have your child christened into a certain religion just to please a family member?

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

I think when people said tell them to feck off they were just using it as a figure of speech...I certainly wouldn't be rude about it but you have to make them know what will fly

I appreciate that, but that message didn't seem to be getting across when people were advising the OP, from what I could read.

Very interested in your last paragraph about making certain concessions to grandparents though, would you really have your child christened into a certain religion just to please a family member?

I'm not terribly religious myself, but neither am I anti-religion. So while I'd have a preference, I would also be open to compromise there, within reason - but that's just me and I'm fully aware that not all would be so, which is why I only mooted it as only one possibility.

I even suggested another approach that involved no compromise.

djk1000

Just tell your family that the childs name will change when (if) you get married in the future. As for now, tell them that the surname was the last thing on your minds when the baby was born, it's on the birth cert and it will be a giant pain to change it.

You might also point out that you need to tread lightly with her family as you'll need your GF's cooperation to get guardianship and that is more important than a surname.

Off topic - sort out guardianship, it's important, unmarried fathers don't get parental rights by default (just parental responsibilities!)

It might be an idea to change the childs name to double barrelled on his/her passport, as there will be issues if you need to cross a border with the child and without the mother.

Big Bag of Chips

djk1000 wrote: »

You might also point out that you need to tread lightly with her family as you'll need your GF's cooperation to get guardianship and that is more important than a surname.

Not true, if she opposes it, he can be granted it in court anyway... unless there are real and genuine reasons for not granting it.

djk1000 wrote: »

It might be an idea to change the childs name to double barrelled on his/her passport, as there will be issues if you need to cross a border with the child and without the mother.

Not true either. My sister's kids have a different surname to her and the rest of our family, there has never been any issue going abroad... even to/around America.

A copy of the child's birth cert, could easily be brought as a precaution anyway.

marley123

My children have a Double -Barrelled Sir name - DH's & Mine yet his side of the family dont acknowledge it even though its on the Birth Cert:rolleyes:

eyescreamcone

What happens when the double barrelled surnamed kid meets up with a similar double barrelled named person later on :

Murphy-O'Brien-O'Sullivan-McCarthy

I know someone who was thinking about a double barrelled name for their kid but went against it as she would have ended up as
Mary Crowley-Foley

Double barrelled names are stupid in my opinion.

Be careful though when choosing the mother's birth surname.
If the mother marries someone besides the father and takes her husband's name...
The child will end up with a surname different from BOTH his mother and father.

djk1000

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Not true, if she opposes it, he can be granted it in court anyway... unless there are real and genuine reasons for not granting it.

I never said it was true, purely a useful ploy for the problem at hand. Of course, popping into court to sort it out without the mothers cooperation is a problemless, stress free and cheap option if it comes to it;)

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Not true either. My sister's kids have a different surname to her and the rest of our family, there has never been any issue going abroad... even to/around America.

A copy of the child's birth cert, could easily be brought as a precaution anyway.

Just because your sister has been lucky doesn't mean everyone is. Try being a man taking a child through an airport with a different surname, particularly a young child that can't say "that's my dad" and birth certs are not exactly immune to forgery. Not hard to get the passport sorted out and it won't hurt.

Anyhoo, next time I try to provide some helpful advice, I won't bother, not worth having to defend every post around here.

cynder

djk1000 wrote: »

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Not true, if she opposes it, he can be granted it in court anyway... unless there are real and genuine reasons for not granting it.

I never said it was true, purely a useful ploy for the problem at hand. Of course, popping into court to sort it out without the mothers cooperation is a problemless, stress free and cheap option if it comes to it;)

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Not true either. My sister's kids have a different surname to her and the rest of our family, there has never been any issue going abroad... even to/around America.

A copy of the child's birth cert, could easily be brought as a precaution anyway.

Just because your sister has been lucky doesn't mean everyone is. Try being a man taking a child through an airport with a different surname, particularly a young child that can't say "that's my dad" and birth certs are not exactly immune to forgery. Not hard to get the passport sorted out and it won't hurt.

Anyhoo, next time I try to provide some helpful advice, I won't bother, not worth having to defend every post around here.

I was traveling back to the Ireland from the uk, with my dad and his friend, we were stopped, the police refused to believe I was my dads daughter. I was 15. We shared the same surname. We were spoken to seperatly and I had to give a list of all my relatives that could verify I was my dads daughter, we held up the boat for 1 hour as they were investigating...


It's very hard for a single male to travel with a child that does carry the same surname let alone with one that doest carry his name.