Carrying on surname really important to men?

124678

Comments

  • FaggyFaggy Posts: 3,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    TerryH wrote: »
    Whilst the double barrelled surname works at the moment for some children, what happens when they have children and their children have children?

    We're just left in a mess of multi barrelled surnames because nobody wanted to take the other persons surname.

    Maybe follow the spanish system of the child taking the first surname of each parent's double barrelled name to make a new surname.
    It's worked for them for hundreds of years.
  • DerekPAgainDerekPAgain Posts: 2,708
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Faggy wrote: »
    Maybe follow the spanish system of the child taking the first surname of each parent's double barrelled name to make a new surname.
    It's worked for them for hundreds of years.

    True but it is incomprehensibly baffling to non-Spanish:D
  • Watcher #1Watcher #1 Posts: 9,019
    Forum Member
    Faggy wrote: »
    Maybe follow the spanish system of the child taking the first surname of each parent's double barrelled name to make a new surname.
    It's worked for them for hundreds of years.

    But is it the mother's name or the father's name from the double barreled name that comes first...
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm a genealogist and I know the history of my own surname (it is a proper old West Riding name, associated with the wool trade, and we have managed to trace that line back into the 17thC so far). Because I know who I am, my name is even more important to me. I'd never give it up for some generic across-all-England name like my husband's. I also am proud my younger kids chose to take it. I didn't know at the time he was named, but one of my sons who has my surname, also has the same first name as quite a few of my ancestors so he is the latest in a line of men with the same name, stretching far back. I only had the shortened version of his first name on his birth cert, which is quite unusual to do with that name - and then found out my grandad's grandad was christened in 1830 with exactly the same shortened version of the first name (unheard of at that date as everyone used full forms for christening). When I found that spooky coincidence, I was even more pleased my son decided to use my surname, not his birth father's.
  • November_RainNovember_Rain Posts: 9,145
    Forum Member
    Flat Matt wrote: »
    What a load of complete and utter crap... and irrelevant.

    How is it crap? It reads like an accurate assessment to me.

    I would have no problem with any hypothetical children of mine taking on their mother's surname. It's just a name, it's not a mark of masculinity.

    As for tradition, I adopted my mother's surname after she left my father so if anything, I would be making it a tradition in my family for the kids to get their mother's name. :D
  • jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    kimindex wrote: »
    The idea is a deeply sexist tradition, whatever excuses people come up with to justify it. It denotes ownership, the passing on of a woman from one man to another, subservience and that the man is the head of the household.

    I know that's not how it manifests itself in how people operate within their families now and people do do it because they don't want to be seen as being awkward, different or alternative (and some men and women do believe in male supremacy, still, of course) but that's the indisputable root of the cosy little tradition (as I'm sure everyone knows but some don't feel comfortable acknowledging it for whatever reason).

    I find that quite an old fashioned view.

    (1) Most married women take on the husband's surname voluntarily and it doesn't signify ownership these days.
    (2) The husband may take on the wife's surname.
    (3) Both partners can use double barrelled surnames.
    (4) It is a simple procedure nowadays to change your name by deed poll.

    Similar principles apply for children.

    In other words, nowadays, there are lots of options available. Essentially, a name is just that, a name.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 776
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Not really, I am the last male in my family who can carry on my surname, and to be perfectly honest I don't give a fig if it dies out. It's not as if I am a member of a royal household or have a family business or fortune to hand over.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,864
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well, call me old fashioned/owned, but I'm a huge believer that husband/wife & children should all have the same name.
  • tellywatcher73tellywatcher73 Posts: 4,181
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My partner and I are not married and my kids have his surname. I am the last one left with my dads family name so it will die with me. I suppose it makes me a little sad that after generations, the name will no longer exist in the family once I'm gone.
  • FaggyFaggy Posts: 3,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Watcher #1 wrote: »
    But is it the mother's name or the father's name from the double barreled name that comes first...

    Well traditionally it has been the father's.

    But equality laws mean that it doesn't have to be that way.

    So it would be up to the parents which they put first.

    Particular as some names sound better in a particular order. My father would have had the surname Davidson MacDonald but I think that would sound better the other way around.
  • FaggyFaggy Posts: 3,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    True but it is incomprehensibly baffling to non-Spanish:D

    Nah it's easy. Makes sense to me.
  • Hugh JboobsHugh Jboobs Posts: 15,316
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It is worrying the amount of blokes who seem happy for future kids to have their wives name. Though i suspect most are just saying it to be down with the groovy gang. If you were to let your wife dominate on something as fundamental as this then your marriage is going to be one of pain bros. GROW SOME NUTS!

    :D I tend to agree with this!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It is worrying the amount of blokes who seem happy for future kids to have their wives name. Though i suspect most are just saying it to be down with the groovy gang. If you were to let your wife dominate on something as fundamental as this then your marriage is going to be one of pain bros. GROW SOME NUTS!

    I am in agreement :)
  • BrooklynBoyBrooklynBoy Posts: 10,595
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Just curious to see if any men doesnt deem it important giving their children his surname. Every man I have spoke to said they would insist on naming their child after them but are there any men out therr who doesnt care?

    I am not traditional at all and my name is very important to me so if I was ever to get married I would keep my name and any future children would be in my name too. I made the mistake of double barrelling my sons name and am not doing again.

    So men is it really important?

    Surely though you have the same attitude towards surnames as the men you are asking about it? Men often want their children to have their surname and you also want children to have your surname.

    One poster earlier in the thread said something like what makes men's surnames so special? Equally what makes women's surnames so special? Answer in my opinion is neither are particularly special anyway.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 79
    Forum Member
    Just curious to see if any men doesnt deem it important giving their children his surname. Every man I have spoke to said they would insist on naming their child after them but are there any men out therr who doesnt care?

    I am not traditional at all and my name is very important to me so if I was ever to get married I would keep my name and any future children would be in my name too. I made the mistake of double barrelling my sons name and am not doing again.

    So men is it really important?

    BIB: they have no right to 'insist' on anything. It should be discussed and agreed upon by both parents.
  • duffsdadduffsdad Posts: 11,143
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mr DD took mine as his father was a pig of the highest order. (Stronger word wont go through filter :D) He's wanted nothing to do with him since he left the house at 18.
  • DojiDoji Posts: 195
    Forum Member
    Surely if you're married you will share the same name anyway (or should do) so you'd give your child your family name which would be the mans surname. If you're not married, make sure you do get married before you have a child.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 79
    Forum Member
    Doji wrote: »
    Surely if you're married you will share the same name anyway (or should do) so you'd give your child your family name which would be the mans surname. If you're not married, make sure you do get married before you have a child.

    Balderdash
  • DojiDoji Posts: 195
    Forum Member
    Under Ice wrote: »
    Balderdash

    :confused::confused:
  • biggle2000biggle2000 Posts: 3,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm not married but I have two sons. They both have my surname whilst obviously their mother does not.

    I didn't insist on it really, but we both accepted that it's generally the done thing for a child to take their father's surname.

    For anyone to claim it's sexist and backwards is just feminist bull crap.

    Its neither its all about choice. I dont see an issue either way. One of my collegues has children with her long term partner. They have no intension of getting married. Their children have her surname.
  • Ben_CoplandBen_Copland Posts: 4,602
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My mum has reverted back to her original surname after having being married twice. I however still have the same surname as my dad along with my sister. My brother also still has his dad's surname.
  • 123keithy123123keithy123 Posts: 351
    Forum Member
    If I don't have children and I am not planning on some anytime soon believe me. I will be the last person in my family with our surname.

    Its a little bit sad as it is kind of an end to a Generation but my Mums maiden name is really strong the ladies in the family don't seem capable of having Girls. so its swings and roundabouts really.

    If I did have children I would insist on them having my name though as it is one of the last few expectations fathers have. I also think subconsciously it helps the man to bond with a child caveman style.but with so many single parent families these days I guess eventually it will die out.
  • 123keithy123123keithy123 Posts: 351
    Forum Member
    My Grandfathers name was Keith so was my Dads and so is mine. I certainly would not want my sons name Keith as I think it is seen as a bit of an old mans name these days and I would not want my child to suffer any bullying like I did from that.
  • DojiDoji Posts: 195
    Forum Member
    You shouldn't have children before you're married, it's immoral.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 79
    Forum Member
    Doji wrote: »
    You shouldn't have children before you're married, it's immoral.

    I repeat: balderdash
Sign In or Register to comment.