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.

@Blossomtoes there are “housemaids” now. It’s still an actual job (title and tasks may have changed a bit).

My parents were pretty much marched to the register office back in the early 1970's by both sets of grandparents. They hadn't been together for very long before my DM fell pregnant, and neither side of the family wanted the child (me) to be born out of wedlock.

They were definitely judged by various people, so it was a rushed wedding; one aunt in particular was very vocal about "the shame" it was bringing on the family. nasty old boot

Like my DM, I was a pregnant bride, our wedding was already planned, but we came back from a holiday with a little extra souvenir. Absolutely no judgement. Times change.

Of course there were housemaids in the 50s. Far far less after the Second World War, but more well todo families would have had a harder time moving on with the times where women had shown after the wars they could more than clean and cook. It was a time of overlapping between having domestic staff and having home appliances that could do the work instead. It’s not like these jobs have disappeared either, now we just say cleaner, housekeepers, au pair. Usually better working conditions and (you’d hope) less classism.

No I haven’t got the timeframe wrong. My mum remembers this happening and obviously I know when she was born.

Just because you can’t imagine it happening at that time doesn’t mean it didn’t.
I wouldn’t post on here unless I was sure of my facts.

For all those people doubting these things happened as recently as the 1960s you really do yourselves no favours. You all have a computer at your fingertips... and even a rudimentary search will supply you with reliable websites to verify that this was indeed the case .

publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt5803/jtselect/jtrights/270/report.html

I was born in 1964. It was extremely common for friends to have been adopted. I was in a tiny village school with 13 pupils. 3 were adopted across 2 families.

By the time my kids were born in the late 90s the only adoptees they knew were from overseas.

A friend of mine had an aunt that fell pregnant at 16 years old in 1966. She was pressured into giving the baby boy up for adoption. Sad thing is she stayed with the father of that child, they married 5 years later and had two more boys. They are now elderly but still together and their first child has never been apart of their lives.

I’m not doubting that illegitimacy was a stigma @MIBnightmare. I was alive in the 60s and know perfectly well that there were many forced adoptions. I do doubt the veracity of someone being certified because they were pregnant in the 50s.

I did it the "right way round" almost 20 years ago, marriage then DC, but I don't think people care nowadays, and being married doesn't always equal security. XH left me with a 4yo to bring up on my own. I never wanted to be a single parent, married or otherwise.

If DD didn't want to get married, I would still encourage her not to have DC until she was in a secure relationship though and be very careful with contraception etc before that.

I would also encourage her to talk through all the childcare/financial aspects with her partner first too, after reading so many horror stories on MN about financial abuse and men not pulling their weight.

Had a girl in my year back in the late 70's that was pregnant at 15.

A few 18 year old I knew went on to be unmarried mothers same year which was frownd upon and left neighbours gossiping.

A very good friend became an unmarried mother at 16, forty odd years ago. So not totally unheard of, although her family did disown her.

OP, times have moved on so much since then, nowadays you don't have to even be in a relationship or be able to afford to be able to provide for a child by yourself to have one, some will still look upon it as being wrong, others won't give it a second thought.

Wrong order - according to who, you?

Perhaps you should focus on encouraging your daughter to build a career so in the event of a split she isn’t relying on someone else and also to pick the right man to have children with, the criteria for which is far beyond ‘commitment’ to get married.

If you spend more than 5 minutes on MN you’ll see a tsunami of married worried who are doing the lions share of everything and aren’t happy.

I’m actually embarrassed for the OP that they haven’t asked MNHQ to edit the title of this thread, as using the word ‘illegitimate’ to describe a child is beyond derogatory.

Perhaps they have a casual attitude to use of racist and misogynistic language as well.

My godmother had her eldest son adopted in the 1960s. She died in the 1990s and was luck enough to meet him and have a relationship with him before she died. Once the 1980s came around it stopped being a secret that she had to give her son up for adoption and she openly told people who known her for a few years about it. She always helped other women out with childcare if she could.

A friend of mine in the early 1970s had to fight to keep her son. She actually got help from the CofE to keep him even though she wasn't religious. Her first husband then adopted him. He's religious but not CofE.

Im embarrassed for you.

Just a question about the "financial safety" aspect.... Is it a worry for some because of the extra expenses or because women stop working? Out of all of my friends and family who have had children in the last 10 years, only 2 have given up work, in every other situation both parents have continued working full time!

Yes it’s because in many, many families the woman ends up reducing her career prospects post children.

Even when both parents continue working FT, it is common for women not to move for a promotion or move to a job that would require travel or longer hours, because they want the built up maternity rights or the flexibility to work around DC. So yes they may still be working but have dented their earning prospects. This doesn’t happen as much with men.

If your friends compromised their career prospects in any way, and have DPs who take a totally 50:50 approach to childcare, home admin, mental load, and are prepared to compromise their careers where necessary for the sake of the DC (eg turn down a promotion involving longer hours) then great, and yes there is less need for financial protection. This is rare IME.

If your friends haven’t compromised

We weren’t when my sun was born 20 years ago, My parents weren’t married. My grandparents were, my great grandparents were not and neither were my great great grandparents. So I’m from a very long line of bastard children.

can’t say it’s affected my life.

*son

I am not married to my DD’s dad but we have a stable relationship, have very MC lifestyle, income and professional jobs. Quite a few people are surprised we aren’t married because I guess we come across as very conventional.

I have never received any prejudice or DD faced any stigma.

When you consider the number of divorces there are, I don’t get the urge to be married but it’s each to their own.

Statistically you’re more likely to stay together if you’re married - 90% of couples still together when their child is age 15 are married: https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/top-ten-key-facts-on-marriage/. So yes I think it does matter. You are also correct that wealthier people tend to get married and stay together and poorer people tend to do neither - we should all be worried about this as family breakdown is statistically bad for kids. The Marriage Foundation linked to above was founded by a former family law judge who observed this in his work and wanted to do research into it.

I wonder how linked this is to other variables though, eg how long a couple have been together, how well educated they are, how financially stable they are. I would be surprised if a professional couple who have decided they don't want to marry for ideological reasons or because it doesn't benefit them legally are any more likely to seperate than an otherwise demographically similar couple who did decide to marry.

This is all arse about face though. There is nothing in the process of getting married (having a wedding) that means your relationship is likely to last longer. As evidenced by the divorce rate and by the many examples of ill advised marriages that end in divorce that we see in celebrities the world over. As a previous poster has said along the lines of, if I went clubbing, found a bloke who would be willing to get married and organised a wedding for as soon as possible.... what makes that a committed and long lasting relationship??

It is correlation, not cause. Marriage is more popular amongst those who are more highly education, more wealthy and with those whose children are planned. Probably to do with socially conservative values also correlating with those things. Pushing marriage as a way of improving children's outcomes is arse about face. Raising people out of poverty and increasing educational outcomes is a proven method of improving outcomes. But it costs more and doesn't give people the opportunity to be smug and judgey about unmarried types with their illegitimate offspring.

@minipie It is rare in your family, social circles and workplace but it isn't in mine.

It's a case of like attracts like.

In fact the 2 women I know who "stepped back" didn't like their careers and having a child meant they could take a break from working and decide what they wanted to do next. Yes I did say child. The women are actually now working but doing different things to what they did before having their child.

I’ve skipped around on this thread, haven’t read all the comments.

Judy Dench starred in a movie titled Philomena about a young Irish girl who became pregnant and was sent to a cruel convent and then searched for her son. The nuns were horrible to so many of the girls.

It’s a heartbreaking and beautiful true story and as always, Dame Judy is exceptional.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2431286/

I am unmarried and in a long term relationship with the father of my children. The oldest is over 15 so apparently I’m an outlier according to the stats above. He gave up work to be a SAHD to the DC. I am the main breadwinner.

Good friends I’m seeing tomorrow are unmarried and their DC are 13 and 15.
Friends I spent last weekend staying with are unmarried and together with DC 16, 14 and 10. Friend I’m seeing next week are together, unmarried with DC 17, 10 and 7. They are also all outliers perhaps.

Supporting a friend through a messy divorce right now and everything is going through solicitors and it is costing thousands to go alongside the emotional abuse and months of stress. She gave up her job to look after her three DC who are 12, 10 and 8. She is totally fucked financially and everywhere we look for support is telling her that her abusive ex can absolutely drag this out and punish her for years to come if he so chooses. Another recently divorced friend only got married “for tax reasons” and now she regrets it as she came out with far less than she would have done unmarried.

It isn’t looking rosy for marriage from where I’m sitting right now.