In my day things were done in order.

P.P.S. Sorry. An extra i in naive. Just noticed.

Possibly with rose-tinted glasses Granzilla. I married at 21 - a very naiive girl who had never lived on her own. It's what a large number of us did then I think. That's just how it often was. I went from one controlling relationship (my parents) to another and didn't really grow up until 27 years later when I finally found the courage to separate from my husband who was an alcoholic.

I think girls these days know more about life than I ever did and maybe if I had lived with my future husband prior to marrying, I would not have gone on to marry him, who knows? However it wasn't the accepted way of doing things. Having said all that, I have three wonderful grown-up children and I shall always be grateful to him for that. And I'm also a fully-fledged grown-up now!

P.S. I do think that young people leap into bed a little too quickly these days...... But as you can tell, I am no expert in the right way to do things!

Agree JessM People change circumstances change. I'm sure that newly weds are planning to stay together but sometimes it does not work out. Others commit to live together and have a family without marriage and they stay together. Good parenting can come in many forms, two parents, one parent, grandparents etc. If the government feels it needs to intervene in parenting it should be in the form of supporting the parents of our future generation rather than cutting schemes like SureStart.

It's a lottery marriage, isn't it. Does anyone else think young Dave C (the PM)is barking up the wrong tree when he pushes the idea that if more people got married they would be more likely to stay together and make a good job of parenting? Doesn't seem exactly evidence-based does it?

Happy birthday granzilla.

Yes we did do it in that order but the problems came with the sex. No pill, no abortion, and many women did get pregnant despite being careful. The choice was either a quick marriage (if boyfriend was willing) or in many cases adoption. In last nights programme on BBC3 (Jamelia and shame about single mums) it was reported that apx half a million children were placed for adoption during the fifties and sixties. In many cases the young woman did not have a choice. Thank goodness todays young women do not have to go through that and are able to bring up their children as single parents. No they were not the good old days.

For the record I was pregnant when I got married and have been happily married for 42 years. Guess I have been lucky.

My grandmother was also pregnant when she married ...lived in the country ... yes 'walked out' in a steady relationship ...but had to prove ones fertility before marriage ...that was the norm then.

So I don't think it was quite as 'cut and dried' as it was for you granzilla... if it had been, Dr. Barnado homes wouldn't have been so common through the first half of the 20th century.

I made a false start (see other thread) then got married beacuse my parents harried until I did then had a baby beacuse my mother wanted grandchildren. Thankfully I woke up ditvhed the alcoholic she thought was a wonderful husband and found someone she didnt like. We have been married for 33 years now so yah boo sucks Mother!!
I dont know that there is an order any more. I see people having enormous expensive white weddings in church when they never usually go to church, have a designer house and a designer baby and they still get divorced. If I had my time again it would be a batchelor career girl for me and no children.

I got married because i was pregnant. There was still pressure to do this in the 1970s. It was still very rare to have a baby out of wedlock and not give it up for adoption and the family planning clinics still expected you to be engaged or married if you used their services.
My mother, her mother, and her mother (my great grandmother) were also pregnant when they got married. So maybe glasses are a little rose tinted.
Society has changed a huge amount in this area.

Happy Birthday granzilla.

Happy Birthday, granzilla.

'Rules', especially ones that keep changing, are made to be broken.

There were 5 girls, all friends, in my street. 3 were pregnant when they got married, 2 were not. 2 of the pregnant ones were later divorced. The other three of us are approaching our Golden Weddings. If I extrapolate to all my contemporaries, this was pretty average. I am older than the OP and the 'Pill' was brand new then and only available to married couples, usually after they had had one child and wanted to space out their family.

Life as a newly wed, in your late teens/early twenties, in a one bed flat or living with parents, and in many cases with a baby on the way, was pretty hard going. Some couples grew together, some grew apart.

Myself, I was lucky - four years of fun filled, childfree, married freedom, 2 jobs each, saved like mad and waited until we were allocated a council house before we started our family.

I think, Granzilla, that you were also one of the lucky ones. Life was not so rose tinted for everyone.

My only feeling is that you should be established in a supportive, preferably formalised, relationship before having children.

The whole going out together for ages and pretending to the older generation that you are not having sex - or worse, actually not havng sex, was unhealthy, imho.

Me too Harrigran.

I agree granzilla, that is the order in which my relationship progressed. I felt it was right then and I still do. I had qualifications to get before I could settle down and have children. I married three months after I became an SRN.

Happy Birthday for Tuesday granzilla or two

I'm with you there, notso. What do you mean, 'if'?

I'm 64 and I think quite a few of us did would have done things in a different order if we'd had the chance.