Intractable baby-name conflict, help!

Hello, my wife and I have been together for going on nine years, aside from a brief break in our junior year of college several years ago. We've been married for 1 1/2, are in our late 20s, and are planning on having a child next year (she is not pregnant yet). We have a rock-solid marriage with great communication and are still very much in love. I have no complaints.

She kept her last name when we were married, which was completely fine with me and still is. She doesn't like my last name. Now that we're going to have a child she wants our whole family to have the same last name, which would mean picking a completely new last name. She will not take my last name because it's an unfair patriarchal tradition and in principal I agree with this sentiment. My mother's maiden name has come up as a possibility for our new family name.

I'm by no means a super-traditionalist, but I do feel very attached to my last name as part of my identity, and I dread the paperwork nightmare that would come along with changing my name. My dad was killed in an accident a few years ago, and it means a lot to me to keep that connection with him, even though I do not have much contact with the rest of the extended family that shares my last name. I'm very close with my mother and brother who share my last name.

Hyphenating isn't plausible given the length of both names, and I've been trying to come up with creative solutions in which I can keep my last name. I truly don't care all that much about us sharing a last name with our child, so I told her it could take her last name and we would use mine as a middle. But she still wants us to have a united identity as a family. My head is spinning trying to think of solutions to this issue. There seems to be no compromise in which everyone will be completely happy. Please advise, thank you!

It sounds like the best compromise is either to hyphenate or combine names.

Combining names might look like this: Your last name is "Isaac" and her is "Pinner" then combined you could create "Isner."

I don't think you need to change your last name. I think that the whole name change concept is pretty stupid, but I don't think the husband should have to change his either.

Some people have creative suggestions like merging your last names, like "Smith" and "Henderson" can be "Smenderson." Actually, that sounds really stupid.

Maybe you can name your baby North West, and leave it at that?

First, my condolences about your dad. Could you honor him by using his first name as a middle name for your child? I think you mean that sharing a last name with him helps you keep that connection to him. However, think about those who will be closest to you in the years to come, your wife and your children. Do you think they'd like the same connection with you? I personally found it more important as my kids grew and we built a family experience over the years and it definitely has more meaning for me now (after raising 2 kids) than it did when we first married.

I know a couple who took parts of each of their last names to combine into a new name. Not a hyphenated name, but a new 2 syllable name made up of half of each last name. Could you do something like that?

[Edit: I see Ms Darcy and annie24 already mentioned the combining names while I was typing]

I feel exactly the same way about my name as you. Right down to the reasons why.

I honestly think your wife is giving you a bit of a hard time here now. Did she change her mind about the sharing of names??

I think, honestly, it's a little bit of fluff when she is saying that she won't take your name because of the patriarchal history, now. I don't think it's relevant to your situation. It's clear you respect her and 'patriarchal tradition' is not a hammer you are using against her in a power sense. More, it is a patriarchal tradition in the personal sense to you that it connects you to your father and your first family. And by continuing names, in a way, we continue on our new families as an extension of that bigger one.

Personally, I've never cared for hyphened nor conglomerated nor 'made up on the spot' last names. But you two need to decide what is right for you. Again, personally, (and I don't know if marriage will even be in the cards for me, so this is hypothetical as well, though of course I've spoken about it with previous partners) I always thought "well if it came to that, I would be willing to concede my last name in order to have a son named after my father. FIRST NAME. none of this middle name gets lost in birth certificate business .

So that is another suggestion to put out there.

You keep your name, she keeps her name and she can have the baby to be last name be hers.

That is a compromise. Making up a name is just....silly.

More, it is a patriarchal tradition in the personal sense to you that it connects you to your father and your first family. And by continuing names, in a way, we continue on our new families as an extension of that bigger one.

^^ This is the crux of the issue.

Even when a woman keeps her last name, it's her father's last name that she is keeping. Even if you take your mother's maiden name, it's was past down from your maternal grandfather. So, nearly all last names can be traced to a male relative. It was how family names were passed on for generations in this part of the world.

If you make up something new, you can start a new tradition. But indeed, you are breaking the chain of continuing to pass on clan/familial names in your family. If it's of no importance to you, that's okay. Personally, I think it's fascinating to look at family trees and see how it all connects over generations. But that's me -- I'm sentimental.

OP, I think you should keep your name as you feel it's important to have that connection to your dad. Furthermore, tell her unless she takes your last name you'll have to abandon the idea of having one family name because you're at an impasse. Compromise and tell her one kid will have her name, and one kid will have yours. And figure it out if you have more! That way BOTH of you get to pass on your family names.

Your family is your family. Name or no name. You aren't going to lose a connection, love and memory of your father if you change your name. And your children and your wife will be as much your family if you all have different last names. in the end it about what works for best for both of you but there is no right or wrong answer and all the sides are sentimental attachments.

I know many people think hyphenations are silly, but we've semi-agreed that it might be the least-bad option. Her last name is three syllables and mine is two. While they don't sound absurd together, it would make for a fairly long name, something along the lines of "Sally Amerson-Jarrell" for example, even though those aren't our exact names but similar-sounding (and it's not the first name we'd give the child, of course). At least then the child can feel connected to both sides. While I'm not a HUGE fan of the neologistic aspect of hyphenation, it seems like a fair compromise. Does anyone have huge objections or think the child would suffer unduly with a semi-unwieldy last name?

Or give one of your last names as the child's middle name?

You'll find no matter what you chose, someone will find it silly...changing your name, your wife changing her name, hyphenating names, co-creating a new one, everyone having a different one, dropping the last name altogether and only using first names... You don't have to decide yet, though. You have time.

You keep your name, she keeps her name and she can have the baby to be last name be hers.

 

That is a compromise. Making up a name is just....silly.

This^^^ Her whole reason is that she wants the whole family to share a common name? That is lame. Things are so blended now that no one cares about stuff like that. Unless there is a valid excuse because the name is famous or something.

Another word of caution, she is not even pregnant yet and she wants to turn your life upside down. The baby can take her name and you keep yours. Perfect solution.

Traditionally, the man buys the woman an engagement ring before they marry. Did you buy her an engagement ring?

double post....

My concern would be that if the baby doesn't have the same last name as you that could prove problematic with things like travel/passports, etc. or other legal issues. I assume people have learned how to deal with that but I vote for the baby having your last name and maybe your wife's last name as a middle name.

My concern would be that if the baby doesn't have the same last name as you that could prove problematic with things like travel/passports, etc. or other legal issues. I assume people have learned how to deal with that but I vote for the baby having your last name and maybe your wife's last name as a middle name.

Not anymore --- my sister and nephew share our family surname. Her husband and the baby's father kept his surname.

The passport for my nephew reads ....his mother's last name.

The birth certificate will list your wifes name and your name.

I think avoiding hyphenation because it's "too long" is a weak reason not to do it. People rarely go by their last names nowaways. Nor do they hand-write them very often.

If it's the "least evil" solution then just do it.

If your children find it burdensome later in life they can handle that themselves.

I kept my last name, and added my husband's with no hyphen. Legally, I can go by either last name or both.

Example:

First: Alice

Middle: Big

First Last Name: Rabbit

2nd Last name: Ears

So my name is Alice Big Rabbit Ears on my social security card.

And legally, I can still use Alice Rabbit on all my documents. I can also use Alice Ears if I wanted to.

Your baby could be Roberta Ears.

Because I own several companies, it doesn't make sense for me to change my last name outright.

My spanish friends have several last names.

First: Alice

Middle: Big

First Last Name: Rabbit

2nd Last name: Ears

I love your "name"!

If she wanted you both to change your name to a different name, she should have spoken up before the wedding and you guys should have become Mr. and Mrs. Barnville instead of Mr. Barnard and Ms. Saville. Talking about "not wanting to change until there are babies" is a huge inconvenience. You may have trouble when your marriage license does not have the name on it, etc, down the road for passports and the like. Do you think her argument is real, or is she just wanting to put a roadblock up because she really doesn't want kids?

When people introduce you, does she allow you to be introduced as "the Smiths" socially, and legally its Mr. Smith and Ms. Jones? If she scoffs at you guys being introduced as "the Smiths" at a bbq by someone and corrects them, its only going to be a world of woe if you do or you don't change your name.

I do think changing to a family name is also honoring the grandmothers and everyone else who came before. Would she be okay if you changed to the maiden name of one of your mother's or grandmothers to keep some form of heritege to pass on to your kids? She couldn't possibly argue about patriarchy with that versus creating a made up name.

Honestly, I would have no patience for this if this was asked for at this stage in the game and not in the wedding prep plans. I would tell my spouse that the kids would take the father's surname or they would have both and be known socially as a family as one of them, and if they chose to when they were adults to be the other, that is up to them.

So it is OK for her to tell you what your last name should be, but not OK for you to tell her to change her name when she marries?

Frankly these kinds of things are quite silly and selfish power struggles in the end. I wouldn't make anybody take any name they didn't want to. You should tell her that you didn't make her take your name when you married, so she shouldn't make you take some other name just because she wants to invent a new one!

You're being perfectly nice and reasonable by letting the baby take her last hame and your name as a middle name. She's the one being unreasonable.

Your kid will probably hate you if he/she gets a ridiculously long name and will spend his/her life spelling it out for everyone and trying to jam it into the limited number of spaces many electronic things allow these days. And it loses meaning in the next generation. So what, in order to be politically correct the next generation has to take both names again so your grandchild will be named John Joseph Amerson-Jarrell-Whoopingcrane-Levitt. When does it end?

Let the voice of reason rule these discussions. The rest of it is just splitting hairs and political nonsense that will saddle a child with a name that bears no relation to his family tree and is burdensome.

Please, folks, calling various ideas and feelings about names and identity silly, lame, and nonsense is not helpful and frankly disrespectful. You can share different opinions, perspectives, experiences, and suggestions without being derogatory. ANY point of view or tradition can be seen as silly by someone else, so stop, please. Thank you.

Please, folks, calling various ideas and feelings about names and identity silly, lame, and nonsense is not helpful and frankly disrespectful. You can share different opinions, perspectives, experiences, and suggestions without being derogatory. ANY point of view or tradition can be seen as silly by someone else, so stop, please. Thank you.

I will rephrase - it is not silly, but highly inconsiderate to expect someone to change their name AFTER you have already married them (i am not talking a week later when one has a chance after the honeymoon, etc...) and have been married awhile with no prior request. It almost sounds like she didn't see it as permanent, but now that they are seriously considering kids, she regards him as a permanent fixture. Or, like i said, deep down she is not ready for kids and this is a stall tactic. He is being more than accommodating at even entertaining the idea of a name change for himself this late in the game.

I will rephrase - it is not silly, but highly inconsiderate to expect someone to change their name AFTER you have already married them (i am not talking a week later when one has a chance after the honeymoon, etc...) and have been married awhile with no prior request. It almost sounds like she didn't see it as permanent, but now that they are seriously considering kids, she regards him as a permanent fixture. Or, like i said, deep down she is not ready for kids and this is a stall tactic.He is being more than accommodating at even entertaining the idea of a name change for himself this late in the game.

I disagree. She has the right to change her mind without it being seen as a red flag regarding her commitment. The fact that she can continue on in life just fine operating under her own name only underscores that there isn't really an objective argument for her to change her name.

The pro-name change posts have thrown up every excuse from passport difficulties to confused children to no avail. Now, her character and commitment is being questioned. Just allow her to continue on under her own name. There will be no repercussions and things will be just fine. If this is the biggest issue her husband has to deal with than he is a lucky man.

It is a non-issue honestly. If he was accommodating, he would just leave this alone and be happy that this woman has decided to spend her life with him with her own identity intact.