Rational reasons for why children should take the father's last name?

[sccs]

Hi, I come from a fairly traditional household and have recently come into a discussion with my wife as to what last name our children take. I've always assumed that they would take my last name but I know that nowadays, things like that are not seen in a very positive light at least not without a valid reason for doing so. I can understand the arguments for both last names via hyphenation or even a joint last name. However, given that I would want our kids to have my last name, what are some reasonable arguments to be made for why children should take the father's last name?

Hopefully, there are some reasonable arguments out there other than "because it's always been that way" or "children were seen as property and therefore, assumed the patriarch's last name." I'm interested in: in this modern society, if you had to speak for a side, what legitimate argument could you give for why the children should take the father's name?

 

[atpollard]

Why do your children need any name at all?
Why not just call them “you” until they reach the age of legal emancipation and choose a name for themselves?

(as long as we are discarding social traditions just because …)

 

[jacks]

I think it is mostly tradition. Probably because it helps to solidify that the child is the fathers and therefor the man is more vested in the child. Also society then sees the child as having a legitimate father. In any case, I think it is best to have a single last name for the family. It just makes things so much easier, when referring to that family. Hyphenated names and multiple names in one family, seems more like trying to make a point, then really doing it for practical reasons.

 

[atpollard]

Theologically, God appointed the Husband/Father as the head of the family … priest of the household … with the responsibility to care for the well being of the family. It was to Adam that God turned for an accounting in the fall.

God has already defined the family based on the Husband-Father (Christ, the husband, comes for His Church, the bride), so granting the children the last name of the father is no more or less than an acknowledgement of reality. To choose otherwise is to fight against what God has decreed and blessed for the “family”.

Verses affirming this divine order abound and verses denying it are lacking. So the question is whether one is seeking biblical justification or worldly justification for your choices.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm interested in: in this modern society, if you had to speak for a side, what legitimate argument could you give for why the children should take the father's name?

None. It's just a convention, and there's no particular reason why it should be that way and not any other.

(Disclaimer: I took my husband's last name and our daughter has his last name. But I recognise that there is no real logical reason why it should be that way).

That it's what you want should probably be taken into account, but if it's not what your wife wants, you may need to work through the issues together and see what position you can find that's at least mutually acceptable.

 

[PloverWing]

I'm interested in: in this modern society, if you had to speak for a side, what legitimate argument could you give for why the children should take the father's name?

The chief argument is that there's a simplicity to conforming to the society that you live in. In the US and many (but not all) European countries, it is most common for the children to have the father's surname. Going along with the cultural pattern means that you won't stick out and won't have to explain yourself all the time.

In my family, we gave the children my husband's last name for the cultural simplicity of it. But we gave them my last name as a middle name, so there's a sense that the children belong to both of us, and that's a solution that worked for our family.

As Paidiske has said, make sure that your wife's preferences are taken into account as well as your own, as you make this decision together.

 

[SuperCow]

Actually, I think taking the father's last name is a relatively modern tradition that developed probably to emulate their monarch's dynasty. Can you think of any Biblical character that has a last name from his father, or any historical figure during the Biblical period that had his father's last name? Everyone is described as [child] son of [father].

I think Rome is the oldest country that I can think of that emperors passed down their last name to their sons. (ie. Julius Caesar -> Augustus Caesar although he was actually a nephew, but his children took the name.) Even then the last name turned into a title as later emperors with no genetic link to Julius still called themselves Caesar.

I have a line of ancestors that came from Sweden (as recently as the 18th century) where every generation had a different last name from the previous one, using the parent's first name [+son] as the last name of the next. (so hypothetically someone named Peter calls his kid John and his full name is automatically John Peterson, and he has a kid named David who's name is automatically David Johnson, etc.)

That tradition obviously changed, but you have a lot of people with last names of Peterson, Johnson, and Davidson which originated some time back with that naming tradition.

So, the only good reason to insist on the last name of the father is that you live in an area of the country where you will be looked down on as a weak simp if you don't, instead of an enlightened, progressive father from areas of the country where that will be praised. (sarcastically attempting fairness by referencing both extremes) In any event, it's something you should work out with your wife. If you were not married to the child's mother, then other complicated last name schemes would seem to highlight that situation.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I prefer the male name as it keeps it simple. If you hyphenate and then the next generation hyphenates again, and so on, you end up with a name a street long, like some of the Tamil and other names eg. the James Bond joke where 007 meets a Tamil agent.

007 meets a Tamil secret agent

Bond- My name is Bond
(smiles and then says) JAMES BOND

Tamil Guy- I am Sai..
Venkata sai
Shiva venkata sai
Narayana shiva venkata sai
Lakshmi narayana shiva venkata sai
Srinivasalu lakshmi narayana shiva venkata sai
Rajashekara shrinivasalu lakshmi narayana shiva venkata sai
Sitaraman rajashekara shrinivasalu lakshmi narayana shiva venkata sai

Bond shoots himself!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It had to do with legality over the centuries. The father was responsible for supporting
the mother and children and could be liable for failing to do so. It also had to do with
preventing inbreeding as the children and wives carried the name of the father and
they were very careful about not wedding within the same bloodline, which was more of
a problem among smaller tight-nit populations than here in the US. They needed to follow
the family tree in order to prevent this from happening.

Lastly, inheritance in both name and rank went to the father's family beginning with
the surviving wife and male children first, then females if there were no males.
They need a name to identify them with the father. Females were cared for when
they got married into their husband's family.

Keep in mind, computers and google are fairly new inventions.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually, I think taking the father's last name is a relatively modern tradition that developed probably to emulate their monarch's dynasty. Can you think of any Biblical character that has a last name from his father, or any historical figure during the Biblical period that had his father's last name? Everyone is described as [child] son of [father].

Actually, they did keep track of the connection to the father's name and lineage with the "ben" conjunction, which gets translated in the bible as "son of."

In Asia, it's common to take the father's family name as well.