AIBU to think the term illegitimate children is outdated and offensive?

Yes, you're right.

Unless Sean Bean is saying it (a la Game of Thrones). He is possibly the only person who should be allowed to.

It's a perfectly servicable legal term. I'm over 60 and both mine are rather proud of being bastards! ( Disclaimer - they are both heavily into heroic fantasy where being the bastard son of so-and-so comes with dark and edgy overtones and probably a big sword and a black horse with fringes ... )
I agree that anyone trotting it out in normal conversation is probably meaning it as a criticism.

It's mainly a legal term as everyone says.

It makes me think of Liz Hurley and Steve Bing's son not being able to inherit his grandfathers (Steve Bings father) wealth because he was "only" an illegitimate child, not a ligitimate child like his daughters children were, who inherited everything, leaving both of Steve Bings "illegitimate" children with nothing.

The point I was making is that the woman speaking , if she was using such an outdated phrase , would have heard it commonly used . Which it definitely was. As in born in 1960 upwards . Most people have moved on from it but obviously she hasn't . Not saying ALL 60+ would use it normally.

I think outside of the legal system, like the situation mentioned by @Badbadbunny , where property, titles etc are being inherited, there isn't a need to be publicly commenting on the marital status of people's parents.

In the context the op has posted, I would have wondered if the person was using the correct word - how would they know the marital status of the parents of all the other nursery kids?

Could she have been saying “illegal immigrants” that was misheard by OP as “illegitimate” for example? Certainly seems to be a lot more people around with a bee in their bonnets about THAT these days rather than children born out of wedlock. It’s also something that shouldn’t matter, but would make more sense with his times have changed!

I can see a legal purpose, but it should never be used to hurt someone's feelings or insult them, or to make someone feel smug or superior.

Also "bastard" of course, and "broken home". I can tell you that as a child, who naturally blame themselves, I definitely heard "you broke your home".

Horrible, ridiculous word. I hadn't heard it for many years, either.

As a point of information-lots of people of 60 and over chose not to marry and had children “out of wedlock”!

I'm 58 and would never use it. Nor am I aware of many of my friends in their 60s/70s would find it unusal so many relationshops are not married...

I'm 68 and it was used when I was a child. At school in the 60s it was rare for a child to have unmarried parents, in fact I didn't know of anyone. Even divorce was whispered.
I haven't heard it used outside of the law in 40 years.
I do remember my DC (now late 20s) used to hate the fact that DH and I had different surnames because teachers assumed they were from a "broken home". This is only 20 years ago, albeit rural village school.

Yuck no. My brother manages to shoe horn into as many conversations as possible that his DC are the only ones on their generation who are "legitimate" or "born in wedlock". My cousin and I both think its weird. It makes literally no difference to our DC. He also talks about how his DC will be doing things "the right way". That is, marriage where the woman takes the "man's" name, and then children.

I can see the use if there were titles to inherit. But as we don't have those it literally means nothing.

And just to clarify, my cousin and I don't have children together! It reads a little like we do.

I've only heard it in historical context - where it can matter - it's common in DH and my family trees - and despite my assumptions it does look like often the family were the support in many cases

Most of my DC friends most of their parents aren't married - and when they are few happen after kids were born - but what make my DC unsual is not only are we married still and before they were born so are/were both sets Grandparents - last few direct genertaions have been very straight foward and boring. If I felt need to mention it probably say parents co-habit or co-parent if not in same house.

Their cousins live in complex modern families - muliple half siblings and lots of persudo step siblings ie live together in house as kids for few yeras but no actual marriages happened.

It was used in an aunt’s will. She left everything to be divided between her nieces and nephews, but if any should predecease her, their share should go to any children, ‘whether natural or adopted, legitimate or illegitimate’.

That last was certainly included by a solicitor, to avoid any possible arguments later. I doubt very much that she’d have thought of such a thing herself.

I’m 59, I would say anyone using this term would be distinctly older than me, it isn’t a term my friends would use. My first ds was only ever called it once by someone my parents age, and I remember being shocked as I hadn’t heard it about a modern baby. I suppose I’d think them puritanical and nasty with it, rather than a particular age.group.

There are plenty of words which were used in days of old, which are simply not used anymore, we know exactly what they mean, we also know there are greater connotations in their association, so we have more modern language, legally and in conversation. This is one of them.

Mostly it's not relevant whether parents are married until there's a breakup or death, so there is no need to have a phrase handy to describe families in the local nursery.

She belongs to a bygone age. Or perhaps just lives somewhere, or comes from a culture, where it's still taken for granted that marriage precedes having children.

60+ is hardly ancient!! I’m 60+ and like to think I keep up with modern parlance, the (right and just) acceptance of unmarried mothers etc.

maybe “born out of wedlock” should be resurrected.

Read @Badbadbunny post. The description still serves a purpose.

My own children amused themselves at one stage by trying to reclaim the word “bastard”!

A Grandmother of around 60 is only 7 years older than me and whilst yes most of my friends parents were married when i wss a child
Its differrnt for my kids
I know loads of people who have children and never been married

I wouldn't say it's a legal term any more, as I can't think of any scenario where a different, less offensive term couldnt be used. I'm surprised to hear it is being used in wills as it's considered pretty insensitive and there are plenty of alternative descriptives available.

It's only really important in historical contexts.

It’s better than “bastard”.

Can I be very pedantic, if no one else has already (haven’t read the full thread, cannot resist the opportunity for pedantry)?

Fitz doesn’t mean illegitimate. It just means “son of”. Plenty of legitimate children would have had fitz names. But as time went on, in practice it became the case that it was only really used for the purpose of naming illegitimate children, especially for where it mattered eg royals and aristocracy.

pedantic moment over, as you were 😊