Bel Mooney on the outdated conventions that dictate how we view married womyn.

There it was, with the caption "Mr and Mrs Jonathan Dimbleby".	IT IS not a story of deep social or political import, but this is how it began. I received an invitation, in the name you see on this article, to the annual Authors of the Year reception at the London bookshop Hatchards. A week later, my husband casually remarked that he would be going to a party that evening, at Hatchards. "Me, too," I said. We are an independent pair. In the event, feeling ill, he appeared but briefly at the party, which was stuffed with luminaries. Just before we left, a couple of photographers begged us to pause and we obliged, not knowing or caring where the snap would appear. And there it was in Hello! magazine, with the caption "Mr and Mrs Jonathan Dimbleby". My own slight frisson of irritation was as nothing compared with our 18-year-old daughter's howl of fury. She has developed an acutely sensitive feminist take on such matters, and objects to her mother's career being excised at a stroke. I had, to adapt Congreve, "dwindled into a wife". The issue of what to call a married woman who uses her maiden name professionally sometimes bothers people. For me, the question is relatively simple. Privately, I like being married and, as half of a partnership, choose to have that name on my cheques. Accompanying my husband, I might well hold out my hand saying "I'm Jonathan's wife, Bel", if it doesn't feel particularly important for me to be "me".
I wrote my own name on the other side, whereupon the man next to me said that he was glad I had done that, because he admired my work and did not realise I was married, let alone to whom.	On parents' evenings, of course, I was "Mrs Dimbleby", because that was why I was there. My private identity is wrapped up with my family and I am proud of that. And it seems tedious to me to saddle your children with your surname as well as your married name in the American fashion, since this can result in impossibly convoluted double and triple-barrelled names. Yet my public persona is different. Once, some years ago, I found that my place card at a dinner called me "Mrs Jonathan Dimbleby". I wrote my own name on the other side, whereupon the man next to me said that he was glad I had done that, because he admired my work and did not realise I was married, let alone to whom. Leaving principle aside, it seems a matter of simple information to use the name by which someone might be known. When a woman chooses to use her married name, then that is fine. But there are problems when a woman divorces and is left bearing the name of a man that she no longer loves. A close friend was leaving marriage number two when I counselled a return to her maiden name. She took my advice, although significantly one or two of her male bosses shook their heads and murmured that it might cause confusion. I retorted that such men think it perfectly acceptable when women in their departments marry and change their names. My friend took my advice and reverted to her own name - which is just as well, since she is now married to a third husband.
What else does the old-fashioned Mrs Peter X imply, but an acceptance of a view of marriage that has no place whatsoever in the modern world?	There is a fascinating difference of style to be detected in the name a well-known woman will choose to use. On my mantelpiece are three invitations to parties. Two are to "Jonathan and Bel". The last card is to "Mr and Mrs Jonathan Dimbleby". It is technically correct, but it raises a smile for its quaint conservatism. I beat no gong for retaining your maiden name, unless you want to or there is a reason, such as a separate career. But in 1998, what else does the old-fashioned adoption of the Mrs Peter X name-form imply, but an acceptance of a view of marriage which has no place whatsoever in the modern world? The statement with which I began this article is, in fact, untrue, for the issue does have social and political implications. In his book The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800, Professor Lawrence Stone says: "Modes of address are significant indicators of social realities." The Miltonic view of marriage - "he for God only, she for God in him" - found its social expression in the laws which fused husband and wife into one person - the husband. The woman was "the weaker vessel", with no property rights of her own. Defoe's Roxana sums up the situation: "The very nature of the marriage contract was . . . nothing but giving up liberty, estate, authority and everything to a man, and the woman was indeed a mere woman ever after - that is to say, a slave." As late as 1869 John Stuart Mill described marriage thus: "The absorption of all rights, all property, as well as all freedom of action is complete. The two are called 'one person in the law' for the purpose of inferring that whatever is hers is his." It is that outmoded concept which lies behind the "Mrs and Mrs John Thomas" form. As such it has no place in a society which no longer regards wives as their husbands' property. Thank God we live in a world where Cherie Booth, QC, may be called Cherie Blair when appropriate, but "Mrs Tony" would be inconceivable and insulting - and as ludicrous as my husband being called "Mr Bel Mooney".