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.

It doesn't matter anymore.

When I was born in early 90s, my grandmother refused to speak to my mum or meet me until I was 2 when she was eventually married.

Crazy when you think about it now.

I don't think there's any stigma about it anymore.

But I would never have a child outside of marriage myself, just for legal reasons really.

@PeachesOnTheBeaches I had been in my relationship for 15 years before we had our first child. Judge away!

It makes a difference to the father. He doesn't get automatical Parental Responsibility unless he is named on the birth certificate and for an unmarried father to be named he must attend when the child is registered and consent. The mother could if she wanted register the birth without him and then he would have to apply to the court for PR.

It also causes difficulties if the father dies before the child is born, as obviously then he cannot attend and consent. Mothers have to go through the courts to put his name on the BC and this adds additional stress at a bad time.

What are the legal reasons that particularly apply?

👏👏👏

I found it interesting that our dil and her sister whose parents weren’t married both refused to contemplate having children until they were married. Obviously I’d never be rude enough to ask why.

Reading with interest as I have an unexpectedly pregnant daughter. Partner has proposed since they found out but they're not planning to get married until the baby is a toddler. A couple of family members seemed surprised they weren't going for a quickie marriage before the baby arrives but as daughter is not remotely religious, she doesn't feel any need to do that.

@nancy2022 do you mind me asking if your decision caused any practical difficulties daughter should be aware of? She won't be bothered by social expectations.

Morally no judgement, nobody thinks a single mother is going to hell. But financially it makes sense to be married before having kids and then never marrying again after having kids. Marriage protects children financially, that is the advantage.

I already feel bad that so many of the associated terms of this subject are offensive!
Truly sorry I do not mean offence - I have no judgement of other people’s lives.
The term is mamzer I believe.

I find that very interesting too!
I suppose there was something about their parents arrangement that they did not want to emulate? Or perhaps their mother wanted differently for her DD?
Are their parents together?

Really? Aw I'm glad! I got it from different groups too, work group, friend group, extended family... Maybe I need better people in my life 😂

Because the mother carries the child, gives birth, takes maternity leave and generally, will be the one dealing with appointments and contact with authorities regarding their child, and will also be far more likely to be the resident parent if they split up. It makes sense to have the same name. Of course if your partner were planning to take long-term paternity leave and be a SAHD, it would make more practical sense for the baby to have his name.

Traditionally the baby has the mother's name (not that I'm interested in tradition, but that's where it came from). Traditionally the woman takes the man's name on marriage (not something I would ever do). So traditionally, the baby has the man's name purely because the mother also has the man's name. Since society has progressed past this, it makes no sense to give a baby the father's name if it's different to the mother's.

No, not a jot.

I had my ds 15 years ago. In that time I've had one work colleague go a bit sniffy and say 'Oh, you're a single mother' with a slight curl of the lip, but she wasn't anyone whose opinion was worth bothering about.

And one little boy in DS' class at primary came to our house for a birthday party and asked me why DS didn't have a daddy.

I said 'Who told you that? Of course DS has a daddy. He's called 'Fred', he supports Manchester United and plays tennis.' Showed him a picture of ex playing tennis. And that was the end of that.

😊

Pregnancy really brings out some very intrusive comments doesn’t it! Sorry for the rudeness you experienced!

One of my female coworkers who was always strongly anti-marriage wore a pretend wedding ring while visibly pregnant - I’m not sure if this was to avoid similar comments but I would never have asked.

I wouldn't judge anyone on this basis ... And as a previous poster said, a lot of women in my own circle keep their names for professional/other reasons so unless you actually know, you wouldn't know if they were married.

I do wonder how children feel though. Especially if their parents were not married when they came along, but then split up and perhaps married someone else. I wonder if they feel the committment to the "new" family/partner/children is different because of marriage?

I find calling children ‘illegitimate’ just as abhorrent as ‘half caste’ and other derogatory insults so perhaps educate yourself on what is acceptable language.

I’m not married, been with my DP for 28 years and have DC together. I’ve had a 6 figure salary for years and have multiple degrees. I have assets in my own right (earned not inherited) and don’t rely on a man in any way. We are both together because we choose to be.

Welcome to the 21st century 🤔

It never bothered me one bit that I had my four DC out of wedlock BUT as the DC grew up they started to question why I didn’t have the same name as them. I told them their Dad and I weren’t married and they seemed ok with this until I started working at their school and they asked for me to be known as MrsDHsurname instead of MissMySurname. When our last DC was 5 we did get married and it was actually lovely having your DC at your wedding and having a family holiday afterwards.

@Mutabiliss ahh thank you. I don't know social norms haha that's interesting never thought of it from that point of view.

As we were due to get married (meant to be now but pushed to next year) I did it that way but i didn't know you could change name without getting married either. Lots of food for thought.

Exactly @Lastusernamecantthinkofanotherone marriage does not automatically confer "protection" it can leave you vulnerable and facing an expensive and complicated divorce if things go wrong. If you have assets it's easier to end things if you have to and you're not married. Everyone should get proper advice and plan for their specific circumstances.

It definitely seems to be the norm where I am too but my heart sinks a bit each time (unless it's also the mother's name). I think it's pretty sexist/patrichal. My kids have both our surnames and neither of us changed them on marriage.

I said upthread about how do people know if you are married (unless you tell them).
I actually know some children who come from families where the parents are unmarried but been together years/mortgage/joint bank accounts and all that - the children themselves often didn’t even know their parents aren’t married. They usually “found out” from random conversations about weddings, or “discovering” one parent has a different surname or something! (Often around age 4/5 when they are starting to learn about different family set ups at school).

It made sense to us for several reasons.

now the kids are older we are seeing the pro’s of dh having the same name.

no one bats an eye at a woman taking a child anywhere. They assume mum.

a man with a different name is assumed to be stepdad or unrelated.

a middle aged man booking into a hotel with a teenage girl with a different name raises alarms.

dh had an awful time after his divorce as he had to prove he was his children’s dad all the time. Schools, doctors, dentists would not talk to him without documentation or mums permission (which she wouldn’t give) And that was having the same name.

@Jeansmuddy haha I couldn't double barrel or use both.. as my surname alongside his turns into act.. ie mine sounds like a verb and his is an action. 😬 very awkward, would have been amusing when they do a register at school though.

Some people have old fashioned ideas, as this thread shows, and will always judge I've found. It's no coincidence that marriage numbers started reducing when women began overtaking men in terms of home ownership, and closing the pay gap. Granted this article is for the US, but I see the same in the UK in my group of friends/colleagues/etc:

www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2023/01/25/single-women-are-more-likely-to-own-homes-than-single-men-in-nearly-all-states/amp/

I.e. as a young women, you're more likely now to own your own property and be financially independent, marrying is often risky if your partner isn't in exactly the same (or better) financial position as you. I wouldn't want to risk that and put my children's future at risk. Blindly marrying because of convention is ill-advised, the only reasonable situation being if you intend on giving up work of course.

As PP said though, financial independence before children is now far more important than marriage to secure you/your children's future.