[identity profile] screaming--pink.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] babynames
I remember reading somewhere that children traditionally were automatically given the surname of the mother.. stemming from Peasant/Noble times. Does this sound familiar to anybody? If I'm wrong, let me know, too. I just know I've heard something at some point or another that goes against traditional belief in society about a child having the father's last name.

ETA: I'm referring mostly to cases where the mother is unwed/kept her maiden name/has a different last name than the father.

Date: 2006-12-12 04:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selador.livejournal.com
my baby has my last name, and I know a lot of people that are the same way. I have no intentions on marring this man (yet) and our daughter lives with me soo.... it'd make sense, right? but males tend to have that complex about a lot of things.

Date: 2006-12-12 04:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selador.livejournal.com
using "it's tradition!" in an argument is a fallacy. Unless he plans on taking his son to the doctors and everything else it just makes more sense to have the child in your last name. If I had been pregnant with a boy I know Jerrod would not of given up the battle. if it comes to it just don't let him sign anything, keep him away from your recovery room (or home if you're doing the homebirth thing). You have valid reasons, he doesn't.

My mom did the same thing with me. I lived with her so I had her last name. When I was 3 my parents got married and they changed my last name... no big deal.

Date: 2006-12-12 04:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lizziey.livejournal.com
Its actually easier (and I have seen MANY people do this) to have the husband convert to your last name instead.

For the baby to carry your husbands name, you would have to go through the whole "get parental righst from birth-father, go to court, pay billion fees, etc etc etc". I know several men who instead took teh last name of their wife and new child. :)

Date: 2006-12-12 05:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ewaeva.livejournal.com
I'm sorry, but what the fuck is he thinking??? He left you and will be living far away from his child. He has absolutely NO RIGHT to say ANYTHING about what your baby's name will be. And to ask you to give the baby his first name - that is just ridiculous.

Sorry. This made me mad. I agree with you. And you don't have to have historical reasons and arguments for giving the baby your last name. You're raising him, he's living with you, the father up and left, for crying out loud. You don't need any more reasons than that.

Having said that, yeah, it was normal for kids of unmarried mothers to have their mother's last name. Probably because the father often didn't acknowledge the child as his.

Date: 2006-12-12 04:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lizziey.livejournal.com
I gave my older son his fathers last name to piss his father off. It was my last jab at him. ;)

Date: 2006-12-12 05:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lastcastle.livejournal.com
yes, it is traditional in a case where the parents aren't married to give the child the mother's last name.

honestly, If I had a child I'd want it to have my last name anyway.

Date: 2006-12-12 10:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ciara-belle.livejournal.com
Actually, there were some noblemen (and even kings) who would officially or unofficially recognize their bastard children. Especially if the bastard was a boy and the king didn't have any legitimate sons. Henry VIII's son with Bessie Blount was known as Henry FitzRoy (fitz=son, roy=roi=king). Charles II recognized just about all of his illegitimate children and all the boys got dukedoms.

But today, if the father isn't around and doesn't want to support the baby, yeah, I'd say the kid should have the mother's name.

Date: 2006-12-12 10:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paganpiratemama.livejournal.com
Most pre-Christian societies (and most non-Christian societies today) were Matriarchal. The property, home, etc. was all the womens' responsibility. Children were always given their mother's name as it's obvious who the childrens' mothers were.

Date: 2006-12-12 11:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kismegreeneyes.livejournal.com
i have 2 friends and one had a baby boy and gave him her last name and her sister had 2kids by this one guy,(now preg. w/#3)by him and they all have his lastname. but i say in your fight give the baby your last name.
(PS off topic, but if the icon you have is your babies name to be and your due date, first love the name and second you are due 2 days after me)

Date: 2006-12-13 04:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smurfb1ue.livejournal.com
I have my mom's name. For me, I liked having the name of my real parent. My dad was just a sperm donor. Especially if your baby's dad won't play a significant part in your child's life, I'd stick with your last name. If you later get married, your child can get a name change.
Alternately, you could hyphenate the name and let him/her choose which one they'd like to use. I didn't have that option since I would've been a King-Pitt or Pitt-King!
Page generated Jan. 25th, 2026 03:57 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios