AIBU to think the term illegitimate children is outdated and offensive?

[TheAverageJoanne]

I heard someone talking about illegitimate children this morning. I thought that disappeared in the 60s, except perhaps on the TV show where people are reunited with babies given up for adoption. It's offensive and unfair.

Yes, I think you're right, apart from where it's relevant (Henry VIII's illegitimate son couldn't take the throne). What term would be better, though? Her parents are unmarried? DIL's parents aren't married and her being "illegitimate" has never crossed my mind, I'm pleased to say.

I havent heard it in years
Loads of children are born to unmarried parents these days.

I was an illegitimate 50's baby.

Grew up in a very strict Irish Catholic family.

Being called illegitimate would have been far more preferable to being called - as I was -
" The Divil's child" 🤣. (Irish pronunciation of Devil)

Couldn't give a monkeys to be honest although I have to admit I really don't like children being born outside of marriage, especially following my own childhood experience, but each to their own.

It’s still a legal term.

and is obviously used in historical contexts.

my dad spent half his bloody life doing our family tree and the word was used a lot.

Does there need to a term ?

Haven't heard that word for years. Where did you hear it?

It's a descriptor of how a child is born (into society). It doesn't carry the connotations that it used to. Someone else mentioned that it's still used in the legal world (and it's better than bastard which was more common and nastier). What would you prefer?

Better than 'bastard', I suppose!

Sorry, @Middletoleft , cross post!

It doesn't even need a term tho. In ye olden days it mattered because it conveyed some sense of inferiority. Now surely it's just a child

In a shop. Woman telling her friend that most of the kids in our Freya's nursery are illegitimate. I'm guessing she's the grandma.

Children born outside of marriage still cannot claim hereditary titles, so there does need to be some legal definition.

Yes.

because in historical contexts it very very much mattered.

for example, Henry the eighth had a lot of children, most of whom were illegitimate and therefore not able to inherit the throne because for the monarchy and for inheritance generally the child had to be born within a legitimate marriage and accepted as such by the nobility.

Henry actually did have an illegitimate son (by Elizabeth Blount) who was given the surname FitzRoy (Fitz meant illegitimate and Roy is French for king so his surname literally means illegitimate son of the king)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_FitzRoy,_Duke_of_Richmond_and_Somerset

he died in the early 1520s.

Henry officially acknowledged Henry FitzRoy as his son and there is speculation he considered him for the throne (he had only one legitimate girl child) but the nobles would not have accepted an illegitimate son.

matters of legitimacy were extremely important in medieval times as most nobles had multiple legitimate and illegitimate children and in general only the legitimate ones were acceptable to the church and the nobility (and obvious exception being William the conqueror who was known as William the bastard before the conquest of England as his mother was extremely low born).

God I haven't heard that used in a current context for 30 years??

So, a grandma used an outdated term? Maybe she's not on SM and doesn't realise it's 'outdated'. Think you can give her a pass.

I just dont see why the marital status of a childs parents is relevant ?
Even when i have filled out for my kids
I have never seen any reference to them being legitmate/illigetimate

Yes, it's still relevant in some legal matters, such as wills, where even modern wills often mention issue (children) as being legitimate or iligitimate. I was examining a will the other day which made such a reference which had only been drawn up a couple of years ago!

It's still a legal term and used for inheritance mostly . Although for dignity sake the phrase born outside of marriage is used a lot . Old church records used the phrase illegitimi so that it would distinguish children born within a recognized marriage

I suppose a grandma of around 60+ would find it unusual that so many relationships are not married . I remember the 70s being aware of the phrase unwed or unmarried mothers used . Note - never unmarried fathers . Think there used to even be a benefit called Unmarried Mothers Allowance . Guess in her day most people did get married if they had children . I hope she wasn't saying it in a nasty way .

Right
But for the average person on street
How is their parents marital status relevant to anything?

Can I be very pedantic, if no one else has already (haven’t read the full thread, cannot resist the opportunity for pedantry)?

Fitz doesn’t mean illegitimate. It just means “son of”. Plenty of legitimate children would have had fitz names. But as time went on, in practice it became the case that it was only really used for the purpose of naming illegitimate children, especially for where it mattered eg royals and aristocracy.

pedantic moment over, as you were 😊

It’s better than “bastard”.

I wouldn't say it's a legal term any more, as I can't think of any scenario where a different, less offensive term couldnt be used. I'm surprised to hear it is being used in wills as it's considered pretty insensitive and there are plenty of alternative descriptives available.

It's only really important in historical contexts.

A Grandmother of around 60 is only 7 years older than me and whilst yes most of my friends parents were married when i wss a child
Its differrnt for my kids
I know loads of people who have children and never been married

My own children amused themselves at one stage by trying to reclaim the word “bastard”!

Read @Badbadbunny post. The description still serves a purpose.