OPINION: Must a woman take on a man’s name upon marriage? Maybe not

By Aggrey Nshekanabo

A few years ago, I worked in Northern Uganda. It was a shock for me meeting married women who had not taken on their husband’s name. It tallied with the community of Bunyaruguru, in which I was born. My grandmothers and my mothers did not take on the names of their husbands. That did not make them less married because they had not taken on the names of their husbands.

As a student of literature (British and American), and in the corporate world of my work and among the elites, it was normalized to meet a Mrs. XYZ. I always wanted to know my many married colleagues and friends who they were before they got married. Many would say; “Oh, my maiden name! I was JKL!” If I were comfortable with such individuals and noted that they would not be offended, I asked them why they would drop their beautiful names.

The answers were varied and to some extent incoherent. My mother never adopted my father’s name neither did my grandmother. And if you asked me about women who respected their husbands and extremely independent; owning their own property and their own money, it were these two women in my early life. 

And recently, one of my daughters started using my name. I asked her why? And she is only 9 years. She said; “Because I am your daughter” I told her, see, I do not use my father’s name and none of your siblings uses my name. You have your names, and they are great names. I told her, I am a child of God, but I do not have to put the name of God on my names to affirm that I am a child of God. And even Jesus did not use the father’s name.

Africans did not have to adopt their parent’s names. Africans with British or American education are the ones who have adopted this father-daughter/son, grandson/granddaughter, wife surname adoption. In Nkore-Kigezi, to which, I have an inkling of an idea, we had names not names. In fact, our names were a sentence. 

For example, my daughter did not have to adopt my name. If you asked her her name, she would say; “Niinye Ndinda Nkwanzi wa Nshekanabo wa Barironda wa Katsyongyere ka Kamuhanda, Ka Bukonya bwa Bugongi bwa Bukuku. Ndi Ekicungura ky’Omuranzi kya Kyanzeire omuri Ruhinda owaitu ni Kichwamba Bunyaruguru. If you still failed to link her properly, she would also give her mother’s lineage. If that was not enough, she would (when she comes of age) give the lineage of her husband.

History of adopting names of husbands

In England, women did not have legal identity. They had to adopt the names of their husbands. In America, until the 1970s were by law expected to assume the husband’s name in order to vote. The long form of Mrs. simply is Mistress of and Mr. means Master of. Men had credit rating over and above women. But as you can see, recently, a Ugandan man did not have enough credit rating to stand surety for the wife! (See how things change?). All houses in England were owned by men. A man built a house, and a woman entered it. She became a mistress! Women could not enter contracts, did not own property or businesses. And therefore, to say, you are Mrs. Grave, it meant you belong to the house of Grave. So, all children too under Grave’s house adopted the same name! 

By you (woman) adopting the name of your husband, you are stamping the vagaries of patriarchy. Interestingly, 90% of British women take on the man’s surname. In America, the figure stands at 70%. The contrast again is that 60% of UK women consider themselves feminists and their American counterparts are at 68%. By this, the women are subtly saying; “I am a man’s property.” As for me, no, not my daughter. And I am happy that I cannot be accused of the same. I have not made anyone’s daughter adopt my surname. 

Did you know that in England (again!), there is no legal requirement for a woman to taken on a man’s name upon marriage? It is only in Greece that it is by law that women keep their maiden names upon marriage. Even in Uganda, there is no such a law that upon marriage, one must adopt their husband’s name. In fact, it is a requirement that if you must take on your husband’s name, you must get his consent and must swear an affidavit (Deed Poll). To change to a new name, it is provided for in the Oaths Act, Cap 19 and or Registration of Documents Act Cap 81), you must state the change you are making to your name. It costs less than UGX.200K) and within 7 days you will have it done.

One of my friends in England, upon marriage, took on the surname of his wife as his wife took on his surname too. He was probably aware of the Quebec law in Canada where both partners are compelled to adopt both surnames but not one partner if you choose to adopt the surname. Otherwise, it is illegal in Quebec-Canada to use your husband’s name.

In Belgium, Korea, and Egypt, it is unacceptable for a woman to use her husband’s name. In the UK, the royals do not take on their spouse’s names; She was Princess Diana not Mrs. Charles. She is Parker Bowles not Mrs. Charles. She is Kate Middleton not Mrs. William. She is Meghan Markle and not Mrs. Harry. Those who get married into the UK’s royal family retain their maiden names except they are given a title that precedes their maiden names. 

If you must marry my daughter, you can only give her a title and not your name! Even in the Bible, we see Rebecca wife of Elijah retaining her name. You are Rebecca, daughter of Reuben or Rebecca, wife of Elijah. See! It tallies with the Nkore-Kigezi tradition! In Buganda, children do not take on names of their fathers. In Islam, women do not take on names of husbands upon marriage. The man is not the owner of the wife. In fact, a woman has rights over her husband. Instead, couples give each other titles of endearment such as Habib Albi to mean “Love of my Heart”. Again, in Arabia, Bint is daughter of, Bin is ‘son of. No taking on husband’s name.

The new fad and a nice thing

Looks like British/American educated Africans picked on this thing because it was cool or probably, they wanted to be like Americans. Today, we rationalize things even when they entrench patriarchy unknowingly or knowingly because we think it is cool or harmless. Some of my friends think it is a good thing for children to take on their names and among the marrieds, some of them think it symbolizes commitment, conventional and part of the marriage package.

Of course, I asked women for this article. Quite a number said, “Well, I have never given it a thought” For the marrieds, some said; “It is to let anyone out there know that I am not available. I am no longer an individual;” “It elevates me socially”, “It gives people a new public perception of who I am now. I do not have to explain myself about my marital status”, “It is a nice tradition”, “It is romantic”, “It is a new beginning”, “My public profile changes”, “It means I am already committed to someone” Interestingly though, none of the women ever thought that the Mrs. thing symbolized “becoming a property of a man!” And when I shared with them that that was the tradition, they felt offended.

Finally, I talked to pastor friends, and this is what one of them said; “You see, A husband is head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church” And I added, “What if the husband is the head and the woman is the neck on which, the head turns? The head can only turn where the neck wants it to turn?” We laughed it off but of course, it also holds water. I have seen ‘heads’ which can only turn when the neck says “turn this way.” On a serious note, though, if you have adopted your husband’s name, go have it registered. Otherwise, you could be a ‘fraud’ or are saying; “You are not royalty.” As for me, I am raising royal daughters and I hope someone out there is raising royal sons. 

Aggrey is a retired Journalist and a proud son of Bunyaruguru, anshekanabo@gmail.com, +256703688447