I BOUGHT a new kettle this week – a big day for the parish. The old one owes me nothing. In what should have been a straightforward transaction, I was asked for my title. Miss, Ms or Mrs? Why must I be any of these? Why do I need a title and what does it mean? What is in a title, what is in a name?
I heard BBC Radio 6 Music broadcaster Cerys Matthews mention that she is not a fan of the 'Mrs' title when she introduced a brilliant poem on the subject by Imelda May on her radio show recently. Cerys is married, but don't ever refer to her as Mrs. She comments regularly on the subject on her Twitter account.
The idea of wanting to be a 'Mrs' is one I have never bought in to. I understand why people get married, but I never understood why a woman would jump to change her name, her identity and assume that of her husband when they enter into the marriage contract.
I have seen young women change their name on social media accounts the minute they sign the marriage register. I have always wondered why this is. Is it a sign that they have done it, achieved the dream status of Mrs, of wife? Why is being married still the superior cultural norm in our society?
I am in the minority it seems. I read a very interesting article online recently. The conclusion of the research presented, based on a large data analysis, was that taking your husband's name is the 'no questions asked' default option for 90 per cent of married heterosexual couples in the UK, despite there being no legal requirement to do so. As women, are we sleepwalking into changing our names and losing our sense of self?
There are no right or wrong answers to this question. When I posed the question about changing names after marriage on social media, I was surprised that many of the replies reflected the desire of women to keep their own name – but the issue isn't black and white.
The reasons women offered for changing and not changing their names were fascinating. Everything from wanting the children in the family to feel part of a unit so having the same name was important; to women who simply didn't like the sound of their own surname and wanted to change when the opportunity presented itself.
I have had the conversation with men in the past who were adamant that their wife should and would take their name. It was important for the family line to continue and not die out. What about a woman's family line in this regard?
Surely a sense of ownership and superiority is implied by the insistence of one partner that their name is the more important of the so called partnership? I wonder how many women have given in and changed their name, against their wishes, just for an easy life?
One woman offered a conundrum in reply. She was married quite young and had been married for 17 years. She took her husband's name and together they raised their children with that name. For those 17 years she explained that she became her married name, she invested in it and it became her brand. She asked why she should throw that away? She is now divorced and has re-married and she has kept her surname from her first marriage.
Double-barrelled names are traditionally associated with aristocracy. When we were growing up the idea of a double-barrelled name would have been a sign of the name bearer having 'notions' about themselves. The double-barrelled name is becoming more popular now because both names are represented and it presents equitable status.
That said, it can be challenging to get the tongue around some of the combinations you come across, and the odd roll of the eyes on hearing such a name suggests that the idea of the 'notions' reaction isn't entirely consigned to the past just yet.
For every name, there is a reason, and it comes down to personal preference. However, it might be worth bearing in mind that changing your name doesn't have to be the default position. It is OK to challenge the norm.