The surname

JustAThought

I' ve two friends ( female)- both married - both refused to take theur husbsnds names for various reasons. Neither husband was happy with it. It causes endless ongoing arguments + i hate it when i have to send the annual Christmas/ Childrens birthday cards to any of them.

Maeve Smith + john Roberts + Kids Ages 6,3 + 1 names unresolved + undecided - still. NIGHTMARE + Social baiting trap.

blatantrereg

The Y-chromosone is always passed from father to son. If correct paternity is established for every generation, and the child takes the father's name, then the same surname will be attached to the same Y chromosone indefinitely. This is awesome, and it's even better that people were doing this tidy sorting well before they knew what a chromosone was.

blatantrereg

yohan the great wrote: »

We cant be goin around with everybody having two surnames.

This would be ridiculous a few generations down the line.

Jane Staunton-Smith and John Jackson-Murphy would have Jill Jackson-Murphy-Staunton-Smith, for example (and that's just one generation on).

IsThisIt???

up for anything wrote: »

If people kept doing things for the simple fact that it's the done thing - nothing would ever have changed in the world. If it's such a trivial thing why should it rock the boat to change it?

I don't buy this, we're not talking about gay marriage or civil rights here! I think people who are arguing for using the mothers surname are thinking of their own interests and not the best interests of the child.

midlandsmissus

blatantrereg wrote: »

The Y-chromosone is always passed from father to son. If correct paternity is established for every generation, and the child takes the father's name, then the same surname will be attached to the same Y chromosone indefinitely. This is awesome, and it's even better that people were doing this tidy sorting well before they knew what a chromosone was.

Not so great for the women though is it! Would you like to change your name?

TBH I wouldnt mind changing my name, if I was really in love with the person, I feel it's just joining them - becoming a partnership.

I know alot of women dont want to change their name though - either they like their name, or they dont want to change it for professional reasons. Everyone should have a choice and no pressure.

midlandsmissus

blatantrereg wrote: »

This would be ridiculous a few generations down the line.

Jane Staunton-Smith and John Jackson-Murphy would have Jill Jackson-Murphy-Staunton-Smith, for example (and that's just one generation on).

Why would you do that?

Simple. Pick one name of each for the child: e.g Jill Jackson - Smith

bluecode

It was never a question that my kids wouldn't take my surname. Besides my name is way cooler and rarer than her name. In any case as they are the only two boys in my branch of the family the surname would literally die with me or my brother if they hadn't taken my name. That would be sad.

It's also largely the reason for calling children after the Father. Maybe it's not quite so important now but when it comes to succession, inheritance etc. There had to be some kind consistency and traceability.

On the other hand my wife didn't change her name when we married. I have no problem with that. But as a result I am regularly referred to by her name. I just answer to it. I find it ironic in some ways. All my sisters took their husbands names quite happily but all my wife's sisters kept theirs. So I'm kind of following my family tradition.

bbam

In fairness if this is a big deal for people , good on them.
Many families have actual problems and issues to work through.

Eithe take his name, or don't. Name the kids any way at all. If ye are all healthy and getting bye in life. Ye should be happy with your lot. It's like your looking for something to have a problem over.

eviltwin

I didn't take my husbands name. We weren't married when our first child was born. She is double barrell but has dropped his and just uses mine. That was her choice and we are both fine with that. Our 3 yr old is double barrell at the moment but when he gets older if he wants to drop one name that is fine.

Having the same name isn't really that important to us, it doesn't make us feel any less of a family. My kids know who their parents are

gingernut125

I have a double-barreled name, hate it, it's far too confusing. My friends use the first half only, which is my mothers. So it can be the paternal name that gets dropped.
When I get married I'll take his name, and if there are kids they'll take his name too.


I know of someone with a double barreled name who got married, kept her name and gave their son a double barreled name, one from her and one from the father. I don't think many people would be awkward and start triple, quadruple etc barreled surnames.

up for anything

IsThisIt??? wrote: »

I don't buy this, we're not talking about gay marriage or civil rights here! I think people who are arguing for using the mothers surname are thinking of their own interests and not the best interests of the child.

Your assertion would be interesting if you backed it up with facts and reasoning rather than just just a bare I think.

Why should giving the child the mother's surname not be in the best interests of the child? That doesn't make an iota of sense.

blatantrereg

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Not so great for the women though is it! Would you like to change your name?

TBH I wouldnt mind changing my name, if I was really in love with the person, I feel it's just joining them - becoming a partnership.

I know alot of women dont want to change their name though - either they like their name, or they dont want to change it for professional reasons. Everyone should have a choice and no pressure.

Women dont need to change their name. A child can be given their father's name without their mother changing theirs.

Feathers

yohan the great wrote: »

We cant be goin around with everybody having two surnames.

Especially if the names were really similar to begin with:

• John Byrne-Beirne
• Mary Smith-Smyth
• Peter Maloney-Malone

:pac:

blatantrereg wrote: »

This would be ridiculous a few generations down the line.

Jane Staunton-Smith and John Jackson-Murphy would have Jill Jackson-Murphy-Staunton-Smith, for example (and that's just one generation on).

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why would you do that?

Simple. Pick one name of each for the child: e.g Jill Jackson - Smith

If you're going to drop it one generation later, it seems strange to insist on having a double-barrel surname at all? Plus, your children will have a different name to either of their parents.

Milk & Honey

danslevent wrote: »

Why do children take the male's surname? Friends and I have discussed this and it seems more prehistorical conceptions that children take the fathers second name.

It is certainly not prehistoric. Surnames only began to be used in the Middle Ages. Marriage was a business arrangement and was designed to preserve property within a family. Until 1882 married women had restricted property rights. A woman on marriage was deemed to have joined the husbands family and his property belonged to him. The children were of course part of his family and naturally rook his family name.
There is no law about surnames and a child can be given any surname the parents want and a person can change their surname, at any time, if they are minded to do so.

weemcd

If the parents aren't married the child takes the mothers name. If they're married, fathers name. Anything else is just gobshítes

and doubled barrelled surnames belong in the stone ages

IsThisIt???

up for anything wrote: »

Your assertion would be interesting if you backed it up with facts and reasoning rather than just just a bare I think.

Why should giving the child the mother's surname not be in the best interests of the child? That doesn't make an iota of sense.

Because the fact is kids have to deal with other kids. While we might like to pretend that it's possible for every child to be a total individual and not suffer because of it, this simply isn't true. And while I agree the only way to make progress is to make changes I don't see how this one is important enough that it should cause any child anywhere even one second of self-consciousness or hurt.

The reason I say the people arguing for this are arguing for their own interests is simply down to the fact that I don't see any children who are unhappy with the way things are done right now.

Kids like to see their father as masculine hero, granted young boys more so. All I'm trying to say is as a kid I wouldn't have liked to have to explain to this situation to other children my age. I truly don't see the harm in leaving well enough alone in this case

CrabRevolution

I think giving the child a double barrelled name consisting of each parents name is futile. Anybody I have ever known with a double barreled name never used it, it only existed on official forms.

In everyday life they used only their fathers surname, and if they ever had to fill out forms or sign their name they used that one surname. By the time they were adults the second part had basicaly been fully dropped.

Aoifey!

IsThisIt??? wrote: »

Because the fact is kids have to deal with other kids. While we might like to pretend that it's possible for every child to be a total individual and not suffer because of it, this simply isn't true. And while I agree the only way to make progress is to make changes I don't see how this one is important enough that it should cause any child anywhere even one second of self-consciousness or hurt.

The reason I say the people arguing for this are arguing for their own interests is simply down to the fact that I don't see any children who are unhappy with the way things are done right now.

Kids like to see their father as masculine hero, granted young boys more so. All I'm trying to say is as a kid I wouldn't have liked to have to explain to this situation to other children my age. I truly don't see the harm in leaving well enough alone in this case

I really don't think the others kids would notice or care that a child has their mother's surname.

UCDVet

Best thing to do (IMHO) is for a new husband and wife to select a new surname.

Hyphenating the names is a pain and causes all sorts of problems for the kids in the future. The name is long, difficult to say, hypens aren't supported in all sorts of situations, etc, etc....

Using either the husband's or wife's name means ignoring the others name.

A new surname for both seems the best. At the very least it's equal. Neither person gets to keep their name and there is no debate over which name appears before the -. And it represents the start of something new, it shows a loyalty to each other that is more important that the family ties you used to have.

When my wife and I got married I was all for us just picking out a new last name.

optimistic_

It's hopeless.
I give up.

midlandsmissus

Just out of interest because it never effects you: how would men on here feel about changing their name to another's?

midlandsmissus

blatantrereg wrote: »

Women dont need to change their name. A child can be given their father's name without their mother changing theirs.

Yes but you said it's great that name is passed from Y chomosome down to Y chromosome. Women don't have this: X chromosome down to X chromosome.

Gummy Panda

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Just out of interest because it never effects you: how would men on here feel about changing their name to another's?

Fúck that!

I ain't being Gummy O'Brien

Feathers

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Just out of interest because it never effects you: how would men on here feel about changing their name to another's?

Would have no problem with my wife not choosing to take my name if it came up, but the idea of doing it the other way does seem strange. I think though that's a lot because it's socially unusual at the moment if it were done — If a man takes his wife's name, he's doing it as a statement.

If it was the 'traditionally done thing' (vice versa), I'd say I wouldn't have a problem with kids taking her name, but possibly would still keep my own. Hard to say though!

EdanHewittt

Thumbs up if you stalked OP's profile to see if this was a man or woman talking.

blatantrereg

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yes but you said it's great that name is passed from Y chomosome down to Y chromosome. Women don't have this: X chromosome down to X chromosome.

That's because the same traceability doesn't apply with the X chromosone.
A male has one X chromosone and one Y chromosone. A female has two X chromosones.
So the X chromosone a woman passes to her child (of either sex) could have come from either her mother or father. The Y chromosone a man passes to his son is always from the man's own father.

lounakin

I refuse to take my husband's name, and our baby has both last names, mine first.
I don't see the issue with double surnames, and when she grows up she can do as she pleases. I am very proud of my family name, it's got history and it's almost unique and I'm not going to just abandon it just because I chose a partner.

In my opinion, take one or the other. Just don't double it, it sounds ridiculous.

Sorcha16

blatantrereg wrote: »

The Y chromosone a man passes to his son is always from the man's own father.

So what? A person is still composed of two sets of genes from both parents.
How is the father's DNA and name somehow more worthy of being celebrated simply because of some scientific pattern? You'd swear it was something they came up with themselves the way you talk about it

goz83

Double Barrel Names = Unstable/Unmarried.

Fathers have little to no rights and now there is arguing about the surname? What next? Will disgruntled women demand that we find a way to remove our DNA from "their children"?

My wife and I had our first born before we got married and my surname was given. He wasn't given my first name, as I think that's just a bit egotistical imo. Double barrel names are like a stamp on a child to say that their mammy and daddy are either, unmarried, uncommitted, or broken up. If the father runs away before the birth, then the mothers surname is only rightly given to the child, but otherwise it should be default daddy name.

Men and women have enough to argue about.

blatantrereg

Sorcha16 wrote: »

So what? A person is still composed of two sets of genes from both parents.
How is the father's DNA and name somehow more worthy of being celebrated simply because of some scientific pattern? You'd swear it was something they came up with themselves the way you talk about it

Nothing to do with celebration or worthiness. I've already explained why it makes sense. You'd be more likely to understand if you thought about it rationally instead of assuming some sort of sexism where there is none.

A guy has the same Y chromosone as his great great great great great great great great great great (....) great great grandfather who had the same surname (if every generation named the child after the father and no names were changed).
The equivalent wouldn't be true if you gave children their mother's names.

I completely get why women dont necessarily want to change their names to their partners'. Your name is a core part of your identity. Demanding children take their names without thinking about why it is preferable the other way around is just irrational though.

geetar

its just bloody tradition. there's no secret agenda against women. men dont plot these things, and women arent at a
disadvantage if they choose (yes there's a choice) their partners name. its just a way of showing you're both integrating your families together.

whats the next cry for womens rights? that they're forced to wear white dresses at weddings?

i suppose that its a good thing that women have to clutch at straws to try and show they're discriminated against. it shows we are truly equal.

midlandsmissus

geetar wrote: »

its just bloody tradition. there's no secret agenda against women. men dont plot these things, and women arent at a
disadvantage if they choose (yes there's a choice) their partners name. its just a way of showing you're both integrating your families together.

whats the next cry for womens rights? that they're forced to wear white dresses at weddings?

i suppose that its a good thing that women have to clutch at straws to try and show they're discriminated against. it shows we are truly equal.

But as they say: there's nothing as dangerous as tradition. Tradition is just things being blindly done for centuries without question, because it's the done thing.

We're not saying we're being discriminated against, just that absolutely everybody should have a choice and both should decide on children's name. I think until the 90's it was unheard of for a married woman to keep her own name.

Gauss

lounakin wrote: »

I refuse to take my husband's name, and our baby has both last names, mine first.
I don't see the issue with double surnames, and when she grows up she can do as she pleases. I am very proud of my family name, it's got history and it's almost unique and I'm not going to just abandon it just because I chose a partner.

Completely agree, I had a quadruple barrel surname and my wife had a quadruple barrel surname. We refused to choose which quadruple barrel surname to give our son, so he now has an octuple barrel surname. I don't see the issue with it and neither does young Jack Smith-Walton-Grant-Pepperpot-Fowler-Dunne-Blanc-Cooper-Santos. When he grows up he can do as he wishes.

My wife is proud of her quadruple barrel name, it has history and she isn't going to abandon it.

Sorcha16

blatantrereg wrote: »

Nothing to do with celebration or worthiness. I've already explained why it makes sense. You'd be more likely to understand if you thought about it rationally instead of assuming some sort of sexism where there is none.Demanding children take their names without thinking about why it is preferable the other way around is just irrational though.

No, you've explained why you think it makes sense -I think it's a bullsh1t, boys club archaic attitude to think it's "preferable" to take a man's surname based solely on some chromosomal crap.

I'm all for upholding tradition and would be most happy to give my future children their father's name but to claim that it would somehow be "irrational" not to is just absurd and speaks volumes about the antiquated, fossilised views you hold.

Rubberlegs

lounakin wrote: »

I refuse to take my husband's name, and our baby has both last names, mine first.
I don't see the issue with double surnames, and when she grows up she can do as she pleases. I am very proud of my family name, it's got history and it's almost unique and I'm not going to just abandon it just because I chose a partner.

I have done the very same, though we are not married. There is no way the kids were going to just have their Dad's surname. I love my surname, and doubt I would have given it up if we'd ever married.

Whatsernamex33

If and only if I ever have children, they'll take my husband's name. I'd probably keep my own.

kowloon

blatantrereg wrote: »

Nothing to do with celebration or worthiness. I've already explained why it makes sense. You'd be more likely to understand if you thought about it rationally instead of assuming some sort of sexism where there is none.

Of course, until very recently there were no DNA tests, not long before that there was no effective birth control. The only line that you can be sure of is the maternal one. A mixing bowl as far as the genes are concerned, but the only really solid line on a family tree.

Gauss

Sorcha16 wrote: »

No, you've explained why you think it makes sense -I think it's a bullsh1t, boys club archaic attitude to think it's "preferable" to take a man's surname based solely on some chromosomal crap.

I'm all for upholding tradition and would be most happy to give my future children their father's name but to claim that it would somehow be "irrational" not to is just absurd and speaks volumes about the antiquated, fossilised views you hold.

Why does it matter how new or old an opinion is?

Surely the quality of opinion is all that matters.

Sorcha16

Gauss wrote: »

Why does it matter how new or old an opinion is?
Surely the quality of opinion is all that matters.

Taking a man's surname is preferable
Taking a woman's surname is irrational

There is no quality to that opinion -old, new or otherwise

Gauss

Sorcha16 wrote: »

Taking a man's surname is preferable
Taking a woman's surname is irrational

There is no quality to that opinion -old, new or otherwise

Yes I agree but a " fossilised" opinion suggests we are all wiser now. A sentiment I disagree with.

Sorcha16

Gauss wrote: »

Yes I agree but a " fossilised" opinion suggests we are all wiser now. A sentiment I disagree with.

That's beside the point and not the issue here

Teyla Emmagan

Just shows you know who your Daddy is.

SmilingLurker

My wife will never be the equivalent of Ms SmilingLurker. She does not like the changing of Miss. to Mrs. so will always remain a Ms. as well. Would I want her to change her name? Hell no, it would so not be her.

Our daughter has both names, and can choose whatever she wants (either, both or neither) when she is old enough to care.

goz83

lounakin wrote: »

I refuse to take my husband's name, and our baby has both last names, mine first.
I don't see the issue with double surnames, and when she grows up she can do as she pleases. I am very proud of my family name, it's got history and it's almost unique and I'm not going to just abandon it just because I chose a partner.

I see. If you have another child, will your husbands surname be first? Does his name not have history too? You chose a partner? Smacks in the face of an equal term relationship :rolleyes:

Feathers

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But as they say: there's nothing as dangerous as tradition. Tradition is just things being blindly done for centuries without question, because it's the done thing.

& the opposite is as bad, surely, by the same logic — blindly doing something to buck the trend because it isn't the done thing?

Sorcha16

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Just shows you know who your Daddy is.

A name proves nothing, which is precisely my point here. A woman could get pregnant by the gardener and give the baby her husband's name if she wanted to

goz83

Sorcha16 wrote: »

A name proves nothing, which is precisely my point here. A woman could get pregnant by the gardener and give the baby her husband's name if she wanted to

I know what you meant, but a name means a great deal. This wouldn't be debated otherwise.

Sorcha16

goz83 wrote: »

I know what you meant, but a name means a great deal. This wouldn't be debated otherwise.

Oh I agree that a name holds significant sentimental value. My point about it proving nothing is to another poster who seems to think that a name is of practical importance to prove paternity, which is just nonsense.

Teyla Emmagan

Sorcha16 wrote: »

Oh I agree that a name holds significant sentimental value. My point about it proving nothing is to another poster who seems to think that a name is of practical importance to prove paternity, which is just nonsense.

Yes, that's what I meant alright. It's as good as a DNA test.