If DH and I weren't married, the kids would definitely have his surname... they are his, after all!! I remember how outraged he was when my parents were discussing baby names for DD with us and my mum casually threw in that we could 'always give the baby your name' (we weren't married at the time, we actually decided to get married that night hahaha) as a response to 'the name has to fit DH's surname' - I'm sure mum didn't mean any harm, and was just giving us another option to fit with a first and middle name, but DH felt like she was saying, 'Your job is done, we've got what we want, see ya!' kind of thing, kwim??

A friend of mine made a good point a few months ago when the topic of naming babies came up - basically, mum carries them for nine months and gives birth, so there's the proof of her 'ownership', it's only fair that dad gives them his name because that's the proof of *his* ownership, kwim?? I think that's perfectly fair - people know which child belongs to which mother, as they're usually the ones dropping them off at school and hauling them around the shopping centre, so dad needs to have something to 'stake his claim', so to speak...