Finally, we started watching Netflix’s The Crown. For some reason, I always seem to get hooked on a series when everyone else has long finished the popcorn. Which means that I have spoiler alerts coming out of my ears. First it was “Ee, dak Prince Philip, isa hey!” Now it’s all about “Tsk, tsk, did you see what they did to Diana?” Argh – that’s it.

We’re now half way through the first season. To be more precise, we just watched the episode where Prince Philip insists with his wife – the still to be coronated young Queen Elizabeth II – that their children take his surname, ‘Mountbatten’, as opposed to the Queen’s own ‘Windsor’. For a minute there, he loses the fight. The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by the Queen upon her accession in 1952.

Needless to say, Prince Philip was not happy about it. One biographer has quoted him as having said: “I am nothing but a bloody amoeba. I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children.”

He did not give up the battle and eventually ‘Mountbatten’ was added in 1960, when it was declared that the Queen’s and Prince Philip’s direct descendants would carry the name of ‘Mountbatten-Windsor’.

This of course, brings me to the Malta government’s recent proposal to revise a number of legal clauses related to gender, identity and the public registry.

One of the main revisions concerns surnames. From now on, we’re doing away with the compulsory patriarchal system of the woman taking the man’s surname. So far, so good. Instead, couples are now spoilt for choice. Times of Malta simplified it as such: A+B = AB/BA/B/A.

Let’s take my example. I live with the significant other whose surname is Busuttil. From now on, we can decide to adopt a joint surname: Chetcuti Busuttil or Busuttil Chetcuti; or we can both adopt my surname, thereby the SO would be a Chetcuti like me, or else I would be a Busuttil like him.

We are able to draw from this lovely selection of surnames, even though we are not married and not in a partnership (always reminds me of Alfred Sant, this word). In fact, according to the new revisions, you don’t even need to be living together. So what does it mean? That you can just, say, be dating, and for the fun of it, sign a paper to blend surnames?

Call me old fashioned, but I find this utterly mind-boggling. Identity Malta said that these amendments are essential for “the removal of discrimination between couples united via civil union or marriage and those that fall outside of those parameters”.

I am sorry but I am lost. People who are united via civil union or marriage or partnership have taken a big step in their commitment to each other – it’s a step which should be lauded because it augurs for a more stable society. People who have not taken that commitment – for whatever valid reasons – and I’m including myself here – should not expect to have the same advantages.

Progressiveness in law does not automatically bring about a progressive society- Kristina Chetcuti

I feel that, sometimes, we’ve gone to a supreme extreme: we no longer encourage commitment and are eager to cry “discrimination!” wolf at every corner we turn.

Parliamentary Secretary Rosianne Cutajar, whose sceptre this falls under, is, surprise surprise, still repeating her former boss’s mantra of how this reflects “the more inclusive and progressive society”. There’s nothing progressive about a society which promotes lack of commitment if you ask me.

“These amendments benefit couples who do not wish to actually get married or be officially designated as a couple,” she said. So why take on each other’s surname, I wonder?

Ah, she said, because it “removes the stigma against both parents who are not married and their children”. Again, the wrong end of the stick: if we need to stamp out the stigma, it’s through education, through psychological support and not through a mix-and-match of surnames.

At this point, I’ll also ask if we’re sure that in 2020, there is still a stigma about unmarried parents. I am divorced, my daughter has a different surname to mine, and although it was far from rosy, the one thing I never felt was a sense of disgrace due to status. At the end of the day, I believe, it’s not what you do but how you do it.

The thing is, progressiveness in law does not automatically bring about a progressive society. People who live in the real world know that in Malta, calling someone pufta for example, is still the worst possible form of insult – including among people of Cutajar’s own party. The term poġġuta is still, unfortunately, common parlance and no surname change will alter that.

It’s great that Labour government has made Malta one of the most legally progressive countries when it comes to civil rights – but unless it’s backed up with a sheer investment in progressive education, it will all go belly-up.

Meanwhile, there’s the little issue of children’s surnames. Whose name will they take? It’s great that we are trying to create a less patriarchal model, but let’s all be realistic here shall we? This is Malta and not the Mosuo matriarchal community of Tibet.

The Mediterranean testosterone dictates that men giving their surnames to their offspring is their King Kong beating-on-the-chest moment. I’d like to see how many fathers will be queuing to have their children carry their partner’s surname.

My advice to women on this is to follow the Queen’s eventual revision. Pick your battles: it’s simply not worth having a Prince Philip feeling like an amoeba around the house. We’ve got more important glass ceilings to break.

krischetcuti@gmail.com
Twitter: @krischetcuti