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.

So you’re ok with derogatory words being used to describe children?

@Jeansmuddy @RoseslnTheHospital There’s research that shows married couples are more likely to stay together than unmarried couples of similar income levels. Marriage also seems to make a difference even when lots of other variables are considered “Even after taking into account mothers age, education, ethnicity, household income and relationship happiness, the odds of cohabiting parents splitting up are consistently twice as high as those of married parents”. Here’s the link:
https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/research/married-poor-more-stable-than-unmarried-rich/
Personally I think this is really important and very rarely discussed.

@Lazzee im totally with you, the OP casually using "illegitimate" is shocking. It should be called out, like other words on here that are also peppered through this site like moron. Aren't people aware?

@UlrikakakaJ its not important and marriage is pushed all the time. What would make a difference to children would be raising them out of poverty and improving their educational outcomes. But that's much more expensive and boring than just castigating unwed couples with illegitimate children.

Well glad I’m not the only one.

Can’t say bitch on MN though, that’s misogynistic, but highly offensive and derogatory words for children is all good.

Most middle classes marry. I'd say majority of working classes don't. Marriage really only benefits women. There's little incentive for marriage if the man is poor and/or struggling besides companionship, if she can't attract a better quality mate.

So your question doesn't have a definitive answer. Depends on the background of who you ask. I personally think it matters.

Only for the legal protections that marriage offers, such as where there isn't a will, so otherwise money/assets would be paid out according to intestacy rules, in which unmarried partners have no rights. Likewise in the case of serious medical issues where the unmarried partner has no legal right to a say in the treatment etc, and the legal representative can be a parent or sibling. And, again, as to who has the legal rights to care for your child - yes, your partner would have rights as parent as long as child were theirs, but in "blended" families or where the other parent wasn't known, you could be back to the parent/sibling being legally responsible. Also with life insurance, pensions, "widow's" pensions, etc., the absence of a will/deed of wishes, and the absence of a marriage certificate, could mean the monies go to the deceased partners' parent or sibling or child, rather than to you and your own child.

For me, marriage was all about protection, which is why I would never have bought our house jointly with my OH and certainly not had a child with him, without that marriage certificate.

Obviously, different if I was going to go it alone without a long term partner, as then it's obvious there's no one to marry, let alone get married, and if that had happened, I'd have been very careful with my will, deeds of wishes, beneficiary choices on pensions/life insurance, etc., to be crystal clear as to who would be looking after my child, the uses of the money I'd leave, and also a clear declaration in medical records as to my medical wishes and who was to make important decisions (NB it wouldn't be my legal next of kin, that's for sure!).

But is it a chicken and egg situation?

Do more people get married because they're already in a solid relationship, so they'd stay together anyway, rather than because they're married?

Were those who go on to break up in an uncommitted/casual relationship who'd have broken up anyway, whether or not they'd got married, and maybe only married for the "wrong" reasons, i.e. hope it kept shaky relationship together?

For me, I wasn't that bothered, I thought my relationship with OH was solid, we'd been together for 10 years before we married, bought a house and had a child. I'm 99% confident we'd still be together if we hadn't got married! Hate to say it, but the "event" itself was pretty unimportant to us.

Illegitimate is dictionary word though, I don't think it is derogatory or a slur etc

I don’t think there is any stigma now (apart from in some communities possibly but even then I’m sure it’s not the same as 50 years ago)

For me getting married would have offered me no protection as I am the main carer for my child and the much higher earner.

People always talk about next of kin making medical decisions on threads like this but in the UK this has no legal meaning or standing. It doesn’t help that healthcare professionals talk about it as well but if someone lacks capacity, unless they have previously appointed a lasting power of attorney the decisions are made by the medical team and those close to the patient.
If you had a close friend you saw everyday they could be consulted and involved and their views considered above a parent you hadn’t seen for 30 years (even though people would assume the parent is the “legal next of kin”) The Mental Capacity Act legislation is really interesting and explains it well but official next of kin is still a misconception in lots of areas of healthcare. There is a different set of legislation under the mental health act that’s more specific.

It is always best to make your wishes known while you can though.

I and tbh I'd prefer my children not to be married!

Most derogatory words and racial slurs etc. are in the dictionary. Doesn’t mean it’s not hugely insulting.

@RoseslnTheHospital I’m also concerned about children growing up in poverty. It’s obvious that kids are more likely to grow up in poverty if the parents split up as there are two households to pay for. The data I shared shows that being married seems to reduce the chance of splitting up. Therefore marriage seems to reduce the chance of kids growing up in poverty. If you have reputable data showing otherwise I’d be interested to see it. Please don’t shout people down or accuse them of insulting unmarried parents or their kids, a discussion based on facts not emotion or anecdotes could help people to make informed decisions.

Ok, so @UlrikakakaJ what is the causative factor in marriage that can change the life prospects of children in households with unmarried parents, like mine. Thanks. One that's independent of all other confounding factors.

The only place it’s insulting is in your narrow, virtue signaling view. It’s the legal term for people born outside marriage. Deal with it.

Well you don’t get a say in that but I’d be intrigued to know why.

What do you mean by legal term? I'm not sure it's still used in that context.

Not aware it has any legal meaning.

It’s not virtue signalling to be insulted bigoted twats like you think my planned for DC are ‘illegitimate’. Sorry is that insulting? It’s a dictionary definition.

It's the difference between denotative amd connotative meanings.

Yes, we know that the words "bastard" and "illegitimate" have a certain denotation. But only a wilful idiot would deny that they also have certain connotations. We can find other ways of mentioning that their parents aren't married if we really have to say it.

I’m not bothered about marriage as such, but I do frown at couples who have a baby to see whether it will cement their shaky relationship (it will usually do the exact opposite).

Not in the least insulted. It’s exactly what I’d expect.

I don’t think it’s fully understood, but one theory is ‘slide vs decide’ ie making an active commitment by getting married and all the discussions around that makes for a stronger bond than more passively staying together. https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Establishing-the-facts-about-family-breakdown-1.pdf

If you don’t believe marriage is important, what’s your theory on why married couples on average are more likely to stay together than unmarried couples even when background factors like income and age are controlled for?

Interesting question @user1497207191, or maybe people who get married have more traditional views so want to stay together for that reason? I don’t know of any research specifically on this q, but I think if it was something like this it might also be correlated to factors like income and age which don’t fully account for why married couples are more likely to stay together. I think the data says marriage itself makes a difference - I’m not sure why but I think that’s what the data says.

It doesn't really surprise me that couples who have made a legal commitment to each other are more likely to stay together.

Probably because they are socially conservative and are conditioned to stay together even if not in the best relationship. Or they stay together "for the children" whether or not that makes an actual difference to the well-being of any children in the household. Or one party, usually the woman, is not financially able to leave the relationship.

People often seem to me to slide into marriage simply because that's the cultural norm still, rather than really making a commitment to the relationship. Probably why almost half of those marriages end in divorce.