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.

Yep. Mine was 11 years, in our mid 30’s, living together 10, just bought our 3rd home together, both in managerial roles, higher rate tax payers and both sets of parents married for decades.

If anyone wants to judge - I really could not give a shit

Why is everyone so offended all the time.

Just voted and it was 35% saying it DOES matter.

Personally I couldn’t give a fig, as long as the child is clean, loved, fed. It’s not really anyone’s business.

Culturally, not in the slightest. Legally and financially, you have more security if you are married, unfortunately.

In what way are you legally and financially more secure if you get married?

I’m not 🤷‍♀️

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

So what? Might that dent his ego a little?

I got married to my DCs Dad many years after they were born . We hadn’t intended to ever marry. DCs have both of our names, we each just have our own last name.
I would never describe them or anyone else as ‘illegitimate’ and would be offended if anyone else did.
I would prefer my DD to not be married when having DCs, though of course I would support whatever she wanted to do. I would be a bit sulky if she changed her name to her partner’s though!

I think the legal protections for woman who tend to take the bigger career hit when they have kids are better if you are married.

the vast majority of my peer group who have children are married.

those that weren’t are now quietly getting married due to the inheritance tax rules and our advancing age.

there is socioeconomic difference in who is married vs who is not and I wonder why this is? Money for a big wedding vs money for a house and people choosing house?
awareness of legal issues?
more culturally conservative.

the only two acquaintances I have who are not married who have kids are a rabid anti-marriage person who has spent a fortune to try to emulate the legal protections offered.
and a person whose OH is a family lawyer. I don’t like him and their non-married state is part of this. She gave up work to care for their children (4 of them). Pre-kids she was a professional. he owns the house and all their assets. And I just know he will fuck her over if their relationship ends. And she will find it really difficult to get back to work after 12yrs + at home.

No, they separated when the eldest was ten.

Nothing to do with ego but needing documentation every time you want to be informed about your child.

dr’s visit? It they suspect you don’t have PR because you have a different name they can’t discuss your child’s medical issue.

school won’t discuss children’s progress if they have reason to believe you aren’t a parent.

it’s especially a problem if they child’s mum won’t put you on the contact list.

dh stays in hotels with 15 year old dd for her sport. Hotels now ask for both names to safeguard against child trafficking. Me staying with her with different names doesn’t raise any concern.

I don’t think it matters. There was a comment earlier that 75% of women earning over 40k are married. I find this interesting, I work in a female dominated profession. We all earn> 40k in our sept and it’s about 50/50 married vs cohabiting. I wouldn’t encourage my children to marry, financial splits are more likely to be equal in the event of separation.

Nope.
And to be fair if you have a father that pays his share of maintenance it’s not even that bad financially. Especially if you meet someone else.

Although I guess I was lucky.

Matter to who?

It dosent matter to the people who aren't married.

I don't understand what you mean.

And what sort of adult judges a child by the circumstances of their birth? Shame on you.

My parents were never married, I was born in 1982. No idea if they faced stigma - I know my maternal grandparents weren't thrilled my parents had no intention of marrying, but they rather have us in their lives and unmarried than not.

My children were all born before I was married. I only got married after reading on here about the protections it offers - otherwise I was uninterested.

I have 2 dcs and never married, and they have different fathers. Think of me however you like but remember single parents are so for a reason.
would you think of me and say a widow the same bringing up dcs. You should single parent is a single parent

I was born in '79 as a result of an extramarital affair (my Mother was the OW). She lied for 18 years, saying that she had been married to (and subsequently divorced my Dad). SHE felt great shame and used to use the term 'bastards'.
I only got married because I somehow thought that marriage was a sign that a man REALLY loved me. Had children and separates when DC twins were 4 months.
As a Catholic, I've felt judged for being a divorcée! I no longer take my daughters to Mass in our town.
I'm actually the only single parent in my DC's year! I don't know who is married and who is cohabiting and I really don't care.

No stigma, but things can get complicated if E.g. a parent dies and the other wasn’t married to the deceased partner and no will exists. This was brought home in sharp relief in the 2010 TV series “Single Father” starring David Tennant.
Marriage as a contract makes everything so much easier in terms of inheritance and parental rights than co-habiting…

Did you just use his name and if so why that and not yours?

Another option is combining both names into one new one. Or everyone choosing a new name. So many options beyond the automatic assumption that only the male name gets to be passed down.

Parental rights don't depend on marriage. Apart from the specific situation where parents are married, the husband is assumed to be the father and can register the birth on his own. If not married then the father needs to attend the registrar appointment to be named as the father. Once that's done, then both married and unmarried fathers have parental responsibility.

Would the anti marriage person get a civil partnership?

@Jeansmuddy because we are getting married, and was taking his name. So it's temporary we have separate names :) i have a few reasons on taking his surname which are personal (bad past, fresh start, new beginning type things)

@Jeansmuddy that was being discussed the last time it came up!!

Practical implications: I’m not in this position, but my understanding from friends that are, is that if you have a child out of wedlock and then have a child in wedlock (even with the same partner), if you don’t have a will written or amend the child’s birth certificate to reflect the parents’ new married status, then any children born in wedlock would automatically inherit your full estate after your death.

My fiancé and I have two children out of wedlock and they were both born before becoming engaged. Only comments I've ever had were from the older generations. I don't pay any attention!

No legal difference since 1976.

There are always so many "good" reasons for the children having their father's name. Or for the woman taking the man's name on marriage. It's all male ego, though, isn't it? Cone on, tell the truth and shame the devil!