It’s often so simple now to get divorced and having been previously married doesn’t put new parters off, as a society we don’t bat an eyelid at news of other people’s divorces or expect them to work on marriages that they feel are failing…as may have been an old expectation. So it doesn’t mean a child is born into a relationship of lifetime just because the parents got married first.
People choose not to marry for many reasons, but one positive one I can think of is that its more practical for young couples to save their money for a mortgage deposit and own their home before having a baby. Making a decision to spend money on providing a secure home, rather than on a ceremonial event that doesn’t guarantee any difference in commitment level, seems a better choice. Having a child together is a much bigger commitment than marriage anyway.
Referring to a child as a bastard is correct in the definition, but the reality of it is that the term related to circumstances where a woman got herself pregnant without first securing her circumstances by having a man who had declared he was ready to provide for a family (usually by marriage as the symbol of that commitment), many woman would not want to put themselves intentionally in that position where they didn’t have the security of a man and his income. The welfare state (and of course, improvements in equal pay and maternity rights) means that woman no longer need to be worried about having a man to support them (yes, Millie, that’s you, intentionally having babies with no means to support them knowing benefits will pick up the bill).
But in today’s society to have a term for a child born out of wedlock seems illogical…because it doesn’t really say much about the child or their mother, a child can be a ‘bastard’ and be being raised in a home with their mother and father who were in a long term relationship and planned the pregnancy.
The term even in its initial use, seems illogical, why should a child have a negative label attached to them at birth, for something outside of their control? For sure, label the mother a slut if you feel that is what she is…but the child hasn’t done anything they can be judged on.
Chloe has been treated as an extra mother for years, she knows what raising a child involves, she wouldn’t be doing it if she wasn’t ready for it. She gave up her uni course to care for her siblings and has slaved away in the magic pie shop with only a pweirdo for company for most of her adult life doing 5am starts. She also appears to be in a long term relationship and did not get herself pregnant by the first random boy she met at a party willing to have sex with her (hello Millie).
I don’t think it matters that she isn’t married, she’s done better than the other Radford sisters already by waiting until her mid 20s and seems motivated enough that she won’t just use babies as a way to live off the state for the rest of her life.
The change to tax credit rules stopping at 2 kids…is really going to scupper Millie’s plans to he able to live Sue’s lifestyle, which is what she seems to be aiming for, minus the pervert husband and grotty bakery which likely don’t appeal to her which is why she is avoiding both work and commitment to a partner.