An expectant mother’s excitement turned to shock when her husband, who’d legally shed the multi-generational family name he despised years ago, abruptly insisted on passing that exact burden to their unborn boy, all to dodge upsetting his relatives.
He’d escaped “Andrew George,” a tag recycled through grandpas, uncles and cousins, by becoming Sunny. Yet now, with the first grandchild en route and family expectations mounting, he’s backpedaling hard, leaving her stunned and digging in her heels by urging him to finally reveal his secret name change.
A pregnant woman faces her husband’s sudden push to use his disliked family name for their son.
The husband hates the family name so much that he legally ditched it, yet he’s hesitant to break the chain for their son, fearing backlash. At its core, what we are witnessing is a classic push-pull: honoring roots versus embracing personal freedom.
From one angle, traditions like passing down names can foster a sense of belonging and continuity. Psychologist Frank T. McAndrew explains that namesaking, or the naming of a child after a parent or other person, usually a relative, is one of the most enduring of human traditions.
Simply put, it is employed as an adaptive strategy for advertising personal and group identity, for optimally positioning a child within the historical and political framework of the kinship group, and for bonding fathers more strongly to their children. It is more common for boys, with patrilineal patterns prevailing.
Yet, the flip side shines here brightly. The husband himself rejected the name, highlighting how forcing it could burden the child with something unwanted.
Modern parenting trends lean toward individuality, as a survey by YouGov found that while 27% of Americans say their first name comes from a family member, many prioritize names chosen because their parents liked the sound of it (30%), favoring unique identities over rigid customs.
Licensed mental health counselor Emma Giordano emphasizes boundaries in such pressures: “both partners must agree on a baby’s name (not grandparents).” The agreement should be between the couple. No one else should feel obligated. It’s the parents’ call, not extended family’s.
Ultimately, advice boils down to communication and mutual respect. Couples thrive when both voices are heard equally, perhaps revisiting pre-pregnancy agreements or seeking counseling if tensions run high.
What works for one family might not for another, but prioritizing the child’s well-being (and the parents’ unity) invites healthier dynamics all around.
These are the responses from Reddit users:
Some people declare NTA and suggest protective measures like controlling hospital paperwork or cleverly naming the child Sunny to force the truth out.
Some people call NTA and emphasize the husband’s hypocrisy for hating the name himself yet wanting to impose it on his son.
Some people criticize the husband for extreme avoidance and lacking the spine to tell his parents the truth.
A user mocks the absurd tradition and the husband’s cowardice in maintaining the secret.
![[Reddit User] − Did his great great grandfather lose a bet and now all males have to be named “Andrew George” in perpetuity?](https://dailyhighlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/wp-editor-1765848648363-1.webp "Husband Hating His Own Family Name Wants To Force It On Incoming Son To Avoid Family Talk")
This naming saga wraps up with a reminder that traditions are meaningful, but so is starting fresh, especially when one partner lived the downside firsthand. Do you think the Redditor’s push for honesty is spot-on, or should compromises smooth things over for family harmony?
Would you stick to your guns on a pre-agreed name, or bend a little for the greater good? How far would you go to avoid rocking the family boat? Share your hot takes below, we’re all ears!
