Honor Blackman dies- news reader refers to her “two adopted children”

[LittleRa]

Not sure if this is the correct section but Bond actress Honor Blackman has died of natural causes aged 94. I happened to be reading the family’s statement online at the same time as the BBC news reader was reading it and I noticed the statement said she “will be greatly missed by her two children Barnaby and Lottie” whereas the news reader said she “will be greatly missed by her two adopted children Barnaby and Lottie”. Why?! A glance at her Wikipedia entry shows she adopted them in 1967 and 1968.

marton4710 Mon 06-Apr-20 20:41:38
When I was in junior school my sister and I were asked to stand up in. Class. The local vicar was visiting and in front of the whole class the teacher said “these are the two adopted daughters of Mr and Mrs H”.
......
That is unbelievable! What on earth was the point? Did you tell your parents?

I remember walking along the corridor at school when I was about nine and the headmistress whispering to another, "That's the adopted child". It got to me because my mum had always said never to tell people - but she told people. Ha!

If you adopt a child they are your child, the only reason adoption really has to be mentioned is when it comes to medical matters, maybe some legal, I don't know. It shouldn't be a big taboo secret either but there is no need for the fact to make headlines, that is just so unfair to the child or children, an unnecessary intrusion on their privacy.

@SirChable I am aware of the thinking and research around attachment, but am not aware of any peer reviewed research which talks about "claiming" in the way you refer to it, and if I am wrong I would be really interested to see any links you have. The expectations, the training, understanding complex issues around identity - there is a dearth of research related to adoption full stop, which is why so many adoptions run into problems - alongside the problems which may be experienced pre adoption by the child. But as I say, if I am wrong, please do link, I would be really pleased to see it/them. Thanks.

It isnt intended to be hurtful or dismissive in any way.
Yes it is. It is intended to point out that she is a "failed woman". The misogyny is baked in the style book.

really?! In fact referring to the father being an adoptive father is equally as important. You were asking about mother vs adoptive mother.

No. I’ll explain it again as you are not seeing my point with the language being used. I was not asking about the terms mother vs adoptive mother
I was asking why ‘adoptive mother’ and not ‘adopted’?

The terms ‘mother’ and ‘adoptive mother’ are irrelevant on a child’s medical note, when it is the medical history that would list the term ‘adopted’ and that would be covered there.

There is no need to additionally write ‘adoptive mother’ elsewhere. And it doesn’t matter if you think referring to an ‘adoptive father’ is also important when there would not be ‘adoptive father’ recorded on there at all. So if ‘adoptive father’ doesn’t have to be recorded, why ‘adoptive mother’? See?

Your point was that adoption would be relevant on medical notes and I agree. There is however, no need for that to be by writing ‘adoptive mother’.
‘Adopted’ does just fine on medical notes (plus any known medical history if applicable) and doesn’t cause the child’s mother any unnecessary hurt with the linguistic implication that she is a ‘different kind of mother’

Chloe I would actually suggest the opposite though I also find it unnecessary. My DCs may have been at risk due to the actions of their birth parents and there's queries about these uncertain effects on their medical records. Marking us as adoptive parents means they know we can't be sure what happened (OK to note) but also means they remember to address us as "good, reliable adoptive parents" not "blameworthy birth parents" (not OK, especially if talking about birth parents in the presence of my DCs).

@fockle I didn’t suggest there was specific peer reviewed research into claiming specifically

For some people involved in the adoption triangle (indeed, some on this very thread), part of their identity is tied up into the innate sense of belonging to family; and language around ‘real parents’ and ‘own children’.. to mean birth parents and birth children is problematic and can have a damaging effect.

That experience is borne out by the research I mentioned.

What they mean is a child they have carried - it is common parlance. I think that the sort of thing lockdownmania has described is very hurtful, but a lot of the professional offence taking here is appallingly precious and really misses the point about the real tragedies of adoption.

Well obviously we all know what they mean @fockle and that's my point: that it's at best tactless and at worst hurtful, to imply that an adopted child isn't someone's child. And by using the 'of their/my own' phrase, the implication is that an adopted child is less than, or not really their child, and thus some sort of replacement/rentachild who isn't a full family member.

....and the fact that it is common parlance is a problem that needs addressing, not an excuse for dimwit wording.

But it doesn’t relate to the mother. The child (whos notes it is) has a medical history of being adopted. Fine. There is no reason to highlight ‘adoptive mother’ anywhere else in the son’s notes (and I can guarantee it won’t say ‘adoptive father’.)

I'm sure you "can't guarantee" that medical notes will never refer to "adoptive father"

You do understand that it is possible for a child to live with 2 parents- one of whom is the child's natural parent and one of whom is its adoptive parent?

My husband's sister is the birth mother of her son. Her first husband who is the genetic father left when her son was tiny. Her second husband is not merely her son's stepfather but went through a formal adoption process. It may well be important to record her son has an "adoptive father".

It works the other way too obviously- and a step- mother can become an adoptive mother.

I think the only people with the right to actually say if it's fine or not in this particular case are the mentioned people in the article themselves.

LittleRa

The statement from the family does not refer to the children being adopted

You linked to The Guardian's version of the statement. Other newspapers use a version which refer to adopted children.

Whether The Guardian edited it out or the others edited it in, I don't know.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8192645/amp/Honor-Blackman-dead-aged-94.html

www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/bond-girl-honor-blackman-dies-aged-94-1-6596348

HooplaHoopla

I think the only people with the right to actually say if it's fine or not in this particular case are the mentioned people in the article themselves

I agree. It's not clear which version of the statement was the version issued by the family. The Guardian choosing to edit "adopted" out out seems more likely than others editing it in.

I think it was probably intended to show that she was a good person or something. I think that a lot of people have no experience of adoption themselves and haven’t really thought about it and for that reason don’t realise that it’s unkind. It analogous to the ‘buy where do you really come from?’ questions. It’s not meant badly but it has an othering effect.

I've looked at several newspapers and news sites. It's roughly half and half as to including "adopted".

It's also impossible to tell if the newspaper or sites saw the original statement or if they cribbed it from another news source.

The Daily Mail , The Daily Record and The Telegraph included "adopted". The Express and The Guardian didn't. I can't find the family statement in The Times. These arecmajor UK papers and likely got the statement from the family's press office.

I know The Mail is hated by many but I think it's more likely The Guardian and The Express edited it out than the others added it.

Dido, I think 'adoptive parents' might be mentioned in medical notes. Other than that, it really isn't relevant unless any - children or parents - want it to be and most don't particularly care unless it is all a disaster.

Regina, I'm sure Honor Blackman was a good person, I've not heard anything to the contrary but adopting children doesn't signify goodness, it is indicative of a person wanting a child, no more no less. As in any situation, there are good parents and bad parents, some in between.

Honor B's marriage to Maurice Kaufman broke up; I do remember her saying in an interview that adopted children have it hard enough to begin with, without later having their home broken up and it's important for parents to make their lives as happy as possible. Quite right too. I presume she had custody of their children but Maurice had good input, I hope so anyway - he died years ago. There's no doubt she loved her kids and her grands.

Jilly Cooper, the writer, also adopted her children and was upset when people said they weren't her 'real' children.

Lynda07

Dido, I think 'adoptive parents' might be mentioned in medical notes. Other than that, it really isn't relevant unless any - children or parents - want it to be and most don't particularly care unless it is all a disaster

I was responding to the posts referring to "adoptive" being recorded in medical records but thank you for the (unnecessary) information.

Whether Honor Blackman's family wanted to include the word "adopted" or not in their statement isn't clear. It is possible they did but some media outlets have edited it.

Was it ‘hellish’ to adopt in the 1960s? There was still a ready supply of babies from unmarried mothers being forced to give them up through societal shaming and many were adopted locally without as much thought being given to future parental contact. Indeed some adoptions were local ‘deals’, with a local family taking on the baby of someone they knew.

But agree, mentioning adoption was totally irrelevant.

But agree, mentioning adoption was totally irrelevant

Even if that were the family's own wording?

The OP started this thread because she took exception to the BBC newsreader referring to it when it was not mentioned in the online report she was reading.

The report she read was The Guardian's. The Guardian's style guide prohibits the use of adopted unless it is essential to the story.

Presumably the BBC as one of the major news outlets received the original version of the family's statement. If it included the word "adopted" it's not the OP's or anyone else's place to decide it is irrelevant.

I seems plausible The Guardian applied its style guide to what it printed. It doesn't seem terribly plausible the BBC news desk did its own research and decided to add in the word adopted.

Before the OP or anyone else lays into me for defending the unnecessary use of adopted- I'm not. I do think however the OP has taken it upon herself to be outraged with no justification. If that was the family's choice of words it's not for her to criticise it.

@DidiLamenting I’m not outraged, I’ve said a couple of times I thought it was “odd”, “jarred” with what was being said, and was “unnecessary”. I haven’t said I was offended or outraged. Other posters have shared horrible stories from their own experiences of being set apart, made to feel different or lesser and of the word adopted being used as a qualifier to define them.

The fact that some news outlets have included adopted in the statement and ome haven’t does not confirm whether the family themselves included it.

Anyway, here’s a lovely picture of Honour with her children Lottie and Barnaby as children

It looks more likely it was their wording than not.

It doesn't seem terribly plausible the BBC news desk would add it in whereas it is The Guardian's policy to remove it. It's not really for you to deem it "unnecessary" or "odd" if that were their wording.

@DidoLamenting What I’ve read implies they gave their original statement to the Guardian.

adopting children doesn't signify goodness, it is indicative of a person wanting a child, no more no less. As in any situation, there are good parents and bad parents, some in between

This and this is what certain posters on this thread do not seem to understand as they seem to think that adopting a child is some sort of act of heroism.

koshkatt Tue 07-Apr-20 10:31:51
adopting children doesn't signify goodness, it is indicative of a person wanting a child, no more no less. As in any situation, there are good parents and bad parents, some in between

This and this is what certain posters on this thread do not seem to understand as they seem to think that adopting a child is some sort of act of heroism.
...
I suppose they do. Maybe they have had little to do with adopting. It's different for people who were adopted.

one of whom is the child's natural parent and one of whom is its adoptive parent?

And again with the problematic language....