The daughter-in-law gave birth to a boy, but the mother-in-law had to draw a clear line with her grandson, just because of a pre-marriage agreement

time:2023-01-29 08:37:03source:novahomeonline.com author:Household hygiene
The daughter-in-law gave birth to a boy, but the mother-in-law had to draw a clear line with her grandson, just because of a pre-marriage agreement

Text / The good pregnant sister conceived in October, and once gave birth, when the pregnant mother gave birth to the child successfully, the reaction of the vast majority of the in-laws' family members must be happy. But life is impermanent, the large intestine wraps the small intestine. In some families, whether it is due to the preference for sons over women, or the conflicts they have accumulated, they have no joy or even indifference to the arrival of a new life. Since my old lady prefers to watch mediation programs, I am also forced to watch a lot. I remember there was such an episode where my daughter-in-law gave birth to a boy in the first year of marriage, which was a happy event. But the attitude of the mother-in-law's family is very strange, repeatedly saying that the child is not their grandson. Especially the mother-in-law, just a few days after the grandson was born, she said to her daughter-in-law, "The child belongs to you and your mother, not ours." Later, in order to completely draw a clear line with my grandson, I even said bluntly, "This is not my grandson, so I don't want to bring it. I didn't see who you had children with, who knows who you have children with outside." If the black pot is thrown off, no matter who it is will be angry. The daughter-in-law called her husband immediately, trying to figure out why she treated herself and her children like this. As a result, the man blocked his wife to the point of saying "what my mother said, that's what". Now the daughter-in-law is completely confused, after all, she has done nothing wrong. While depressed, she suddenly remembered an agreement between herself and her husband's family before marriage: after the birth of the first child, she must follow the woman's surname. Since her husband agreed at the time, she didn't take it to heart. But now that the cause and effect are linked together, it can probably explain why the mother-in-law's family keeps saying that the child is not their own. For his wife's speculation, the man expressed disapproval. In his view, parents fully accept that the child will follow the woman's surname. It's just that the mother wants to bear the cost of raising the child jointly by the two families. In his opinion, this request is not excessive, but his wife is too sensitive. Tsk tsk, obviously he is the grandson of his own family, why should his in-laws bear the maintenance expenses together? In the final analysis, I still feel that my grandson is not a member of his own family if he takes the woman's surname. So here comes the problem. Since the child is biological, it stands to reason that no matter who it is, it will always be the baby of the whole family. But why, there are always people arguing about the child's surname, and even because the child doesn't share their own surname, they don't like to see each other? This is because, in the concept of many people, the surname is not just a simple code name, but carries multiple meanings such as inheritance of family and property. Especially in some places with strong clan awareness, the surname is even an important sign of continuation of blood. If the child does not share the in-law's family name, in their opinion, it is not eligible for the genealogy. In other words, the right to crown and surname is essentially a sense of ritual passed down from generation to generation. When a child follows his surname, it marks the inheritance of his family. If the woman gives birth to a second child and lets the second child follow her in-law's surname, will the above-mentioned problems be solved easily? In fact, with the opening of the two-child and three-child policy, some families do let a child take the mother's surname. But if the family attaches more importance to surname inheritance, it really cannot be forced. Otherwise, two children with different surnames will inevitably have many disadvantages. Not to mention the embarrassment that a child encounters every time an outsider asks "Why don't you share your father's surname, isn't it your own?". Just being treated differently by the elderly at home is enough to make them sad. Although they are blood relatives, many feelings are cultivated the day after tomorrow. If the elderly feel that the child with the mother's surname is not their own family, this kind of psychological estrangement will definitely be manifested in daily life. Although they don't say it, they will be more partial to the child with their own surname.
Related content
Hot content