Child out of wedlock / illegitimate - does it still matter

[Bananabreadandstrawberries]

Does it still matter in any way whether your child was born within a marriage or not? Is there any stigma to being an ‘unwed mother’ or ‘illegitimate child’ (apologies no offence intended). Do you view people differently before of this status? Are there any practical implications?

For those of you who feel it doesn’t matter, would you still prefer your own daughter were married before having children?

I ask as I feel despite most people not minding this about other people, the couples ‘doing better’ in life still tend to marry before having children. I am not sure

AIBU that legitimacy doesn’t matter anymore?
YES = Makes a difference (even though it’s not PC to say so)
NO = Makes no difference about being married before children.

No stigma whatsoever, a couple of girls at our school had babies around 1970, no one batter an eyelid.

One more is always better than one less.

Never had anyone say anything to me about it, not even my very Catholic granny (although she probably did have some thoughts to be fair!). And although technically it was the “wrong order”, it was actually quite nice to have DD at our wedding. She was very cute!

I don’t believe you. Teenage pregnancies were considered absolutely scandalous at that time. Rose tinted spectacles there.

I wasn't around in 1970, but based on the reaction to teen pregnancies in the 90s, I find it really hard to believe that things were better 20 odd years earlier.

Hi everyone

I will be controversial in saying that I do prefer to be married than not with all things considered.

As with most things it is now common to be indifferent about everything and of course I also aubergine to the 'live and let live' ideology in most cases, but I do know what I would prefer for myself and children and that is marriage

I am one of those children born out of wedlock, my siblings and I have different fathers and she only married my younger siblings father who later adopted us so we all shared his name. Of course this situation is unique to me and my family, the fact is that in most cases a man unwilling to marry the mother of his children is less likely to be committed to her and the family going forward

Marriage is not just a social or financial contract but for me a spiritual one, being married I think causes me to view my relationship differently, perhaps putting more effort to make it work etc

I feel happy seeing my wedding pictures up in the home, and growing up I didn't have that and because my mothers relationship with my father was very negative following my birth, it did in some ways affect my sense of identity in that I did not come from a happy beginning

Over the years I have tried to rationalise why my parents didn't stay together, and only as an adult see that my father was irresponsible from the start and continued to be so.

He was never going to marry my mother, did not care for the children he created and continues in this manner today

If my mother would have had that 'talk' with my dad and sought to marry him, it's likely that she would have seen his inability to commit before having a child with him (no blame on her but only admiration for continuing a pregnancy and raising her children the way she did)

My own feelings surrounding my birth and upbringing by a more committed step father had made me want to seek out 'the good guy' from the start, the one that would commit and be there for the family- which turned out to be a good decision

Kudos to all these people in long term relationships with no marriage making it work and going on about marriage only offering financial protection, if I can however build a life with a man, risk my life in childbirth etc then what is a piece of paper?

My kids understand that before they came about, my husband and I had a life together, we're happy and planned their birth and the raising of our children together

We have over the years amassed wealth as we got better jobs etc and yet I don't understand the logic that if something happened to me, this person whom I have been with my whole adult life and who I expect to continue to care for our children, I would want to keep our property or savings from when I'm gone- choose a good man in the first place or don't bother at all

We have male children and whilst a part of me would like them to buy property before marriage so they always have an asset of their own that is not considered in the event of a divorce, the trend of only thinking about how a women/ mother is impacted by having children is worrying

My DH's career has also probably been impacted also as we both work, he has changed as much nappies, fed children, chauffeured the kids to numerous activities, paid half of nursery fees etc as part of being a good father!

I was only at home for 1yrs maternity leave and since that time have returned to work and progressed in my career as expected- even being the higher earner at times!

When I was on mat leave my DH had to cover the household costs etc or is it only ok if the woman is financially ok but not the man?

My sons talk about a future where they will be fathers and husbands and don't see that being exclusive of each other as this is what they see their father doing

Growing up in a house where I was the step daughter made me feel that relationships were not necessarily permanent but often transitory, this did not enable me feel settled and that I had a true 'place' in my family though I accept that not everyone will feel the same

I think our culture of mocking or unpicking what is not our experience has contributed to the decline of marriage as the norm

Even on threads such as this, the answer to any disagreement is LTB , these 'B's' are often our children's fathers, so what does that teach our children about managing conflicts and commitment to a cause? Why are we then surprised that the children when older also struggle to maintain their relationships.

I find that my friends/ relatives etc who are long term married give more balanced advice around relationships and that in reality most issues do blow over- provided you take time to study your mate before committing to marriage, having children etc

If you have been with your unmarried partner for decades lucky you, but I also know of people in long term relationships where at the mention of marriage/ babies the relationship has not stood the test of time.

I also find that the people who are unmarried on the thread seem so defensive of their 'choice' eg 'I am not married and been together 40yrs so stick it up your arse' but equally there are people who have been married for decades too!

Ultimately it's what works for you and your family ❤️

@Thisbastardcomputer but were those girls left bringing up their babies on their own or were they with the Dads?
There is a big difference between an unmarried mother and a single mother.

I was 17 in 1970. Getting pregnant without being married was a young woman’s greatest fear. One of my friends was marched off to the abortion clinic by her scandalised mother, another was in the registry office before she showed.

Wow where did you grow up. That was not the attitude my mother experienced when she fell pregnant with me in late 1969 at aged 19. It was the talk of the village and the shame my mum felt was enormous. Her father didn't speak to her for months and she was shunned by some neighbours. She was pressured into marrying my father at 4 months pregnant and they were given a stern lecture from the vicar marrying them.

It's hardly considered ideal even now!

Sorry, to clarify, I mean schoolgirls/teens getting pregnant, not unmarried women.

I had a child 17 years ago (2006) as an unwed, single mother and it was definitely frowned upon. I had people telling me to get an abortion, that I was ruining my life etc.

I think maybe it matters whereabouts you live and your social background, I am from a middle class background and a small town and it definitely mattered.

@Tjit i think it's very natural for unmarried mothers on this thread to be more defensive as that was the stigma... That we are the ones doing it "wrong", that we should be "looked down on", that we were the "disappointments to the family"... Stigmas that are thankfully changing but as this thread has shown, are still alive and well for some people!

Funnily enough, I grew up in a happy family environment with married parents who are still together. I'm not fully convinced they really love each other but are sticking with it because of that piece of paper. My partners parents were unmarried when they first had children and are married now and display a much more loving relationship. This was one reason of a few that we decided to start a family before getting married.

I dont agree with if get married first you will know how committed a man / woman will be to a family. Child rearing is difficult and no matter how much you prepare, it is a massive change. Some people aren't able for the change and I don't believe a wedding ring is suddenly going to make them capable.

I guess we are all just sharing our own experience and our own opinions but I find some of your phrasing is (perhaps unintentionally) insulting to unmarried mothers in my opinion.

Ultimately though me and my family are happy, you and your family are happy, so fuck others opinions either way 😜

I had my first, unmarried in 1985 and like others on here had a lot of nasty things said. Many people still had the opinion that we should be giving our babies up for adoption. One midwife even brought it up while I was in labour. I was with my partner (who I later married) and we owned our own home etc. In 1997 I can remember the the media attacks on single mums, only because I was pregnant again (this time married) but some of my friends wasn't. I can still remember having to defend unmarried pregnant colleagues in work in 1999/2000.

Women/children were really fucked over by Christianity. Watching and reading stuff on early Saxons and vikings, life was much better. Our successive governments have done nothing to elevate the poverty caused by men not stepping up, that's the real reason behind the statistics, that and now working policies on child friendly hours/childcare. We wouldn't tell any other group to change their behaviour based on structurally caused inequalities.

I’m glad most of us have moved on from those dreadful times you see on Long Lost Family where unmarried girls pretty much were disowned by their families and forced to have their babies adopted. Fir most of them it’s left a dark shadow over their whole lives.

A distant relative had a child out of ‘wedlock’ in the 1950’s. She was a housemaid who had a relationship with the man of the house and fell pregnant. To avoid this coming out she was certified as insane by a private doctor and sectioned. She ended up living her whole life in a psychiatric hospital until her death about 20 years ago.

I somehow doubt that happened in the 1950s. The 20s or 30s perhaps.

I know of a woman who was placed under psychiatric care for getting pregnant out of wedlock in the 60s. It’s certainly believable.

There is no stigma nowadays and for my own daughters i would prefer them to be in committed long term relationships before having kids, not necessarily married but planned. I’m old fashioned though - always wanted a family & it was important to me personally to be married 1st & have financial stability before having kids but i was lucky to meet my husband at 19 when i know others who have been late twenties / early thirties before they have. I was 22 when we got engaged and bought a house, married at 23 & kids at 25 & 29 (i graduated at 21) wouldn’t change it & despite what i would “prefer” for my daughters it’s their choice at the end of the day and i will always support them. I made my choices and wouldn’t judge anyone else for theirs but most people i know are married & were before having kids (i’m 38)

Morally no one gives a toss.

Legally I would be extremely surprised if any of my daughters agreed to having a child without a legal contract with the father . Be that marriage or civil partnership. They are just not that daft.

When men learn to give birth and routinely reduce their income for child rearing along with their pension contributions.. then I guess it will become irrelevant.

Personally I would never have a baby with someone who wasn’t willing to marry me first. I married DH and had 2 children afterwards. Therefore I know he proposed to me because he loves me and wanted to marry me, not out of obligation because he’d got me pregnant.

Friends and family members who had babies with men they weren’t married to are no longer together. And yes they gave their babies the dad’s last name ffs.

I don’t think it matters in the way it did in the past, BUT the people around me who are doing better in life got married before having their children. That’s just a fact.

Is it a self-esteem thing? Some women think they’re not good enough to marry?

It did happen. It was a relative of my mums.

It did happen as recently as the 60’s. Especially if there was influence over the doctors to keep things hushed up.

@Tjit

choose a good man in the first place or don't bother at all

This underpins the logic of your entire post doesn't it? It's a horribly smug perspective, it's a stealth way of sneering at women who are less fortunate. It also ignores the fact that this simply isn't always possible. A large number of abusive men don't reveal their abusive colours until after marriage and children. Women who have married men who appear kind and supportive but turn out not to be need to have the right to leave an abusive marriage.

Even on threads such as this, the answer to any disagreement is LTB , these 'B's' are often our children's fathers, so what does that teach our children about managing conflicts and commitment to a cause? Why are we then surprised that the children when older also struggle to maintain their relationships.

The fact that a "B" is the child's father is neither here nor there if he is bastard (let's call a spade a spade and not mince around with silly capitals). A woman in an abusive or neglectful relationship does not owe it to a man to "manage conflicts" to keep the peace and there is no "cause" if the man is abusive or neglectful.

I don't accept that seeing a woman prioritise her children over an deserving husband will make children less likely to pursue healthy relationships. If anything I think seeing a strong woman with agency and a fierce desire to protect her children is far better than seeing one who prioritises maintaining compliance with a man's needs at all times over everything else. What your husband wants and what your children need are not necessarily always the same thing.

Marriage is not just a social or financial contract but for me a spiritual one, being married I think causes me to view my relationship differently, perhaps putting more effort to make it work etc

You're totally entitled to your perspective and if helps you strengthening your marriage, fair enough. But people without spirituality are just as entitled to have strong relationships and raise healthy children. And many do.

I completely disagree with your perspective on marriage. I think it is literally just a financial contract. It has its uses, certainly, but I think imbuing it with some significance that goes beyond a practical tool is actually dangerous because it persuades many women to stay in damaging partnerships long past the point where they are useful and supportive.

I will encourage my daughter to pursue a career so it doesn't matter if she's married or not if or when she has children. Just as I did. Marriage would not benefit me financially at the moment (in the event of a divorce, I would lose more assets.) And they have my partner's last name - I don't care at all about that. It's just a nicer name.

I would be disappointed if my daughter decided not to pursue a career, married or not.

There were housemaids in the 50s? Really? I don’t doubt that it happened to an earlier generation of women when domestic service was heavily populated but not in my life time. I’m not doubting it happened but I think you’ve got the time frame wrong.

This sums up exactly how I feel. I would very much hope by the time my daughter is old enough to be thinking about this that marriage would be at best an irrelevance to her (which it should be if she has a good career).

If she didn't work I would be disappointed anyway (which is another story) and in such a case I would want her to be married as an act of self-protection. But very much as a worst case scenario.

The idea that marriage should be a financial goal in itself depresses me and I wouldn't want to set that kind of example to a female child.