In the 1960s I worked with someone who was a few years older than me, a lovely, kind person but she was what was termed 'a bag of nerves'. She talked a great deal about her little brother. Eventually one of the other women told me that her brother was in fact her son; she had been allowed by her family to keep the baby but could not acknowledge him as hers. Nowadays it seems unkind and actually seems ridiculous because everyone seemed to know about it. He would have been born in the 1950s.

I was unmarried and pregnant in the early eighties. I was surprised to find that prejudice was alive and well in my working class family. My grandmother refused to let me go shopping with her in case she met someone she knew. My family practically frogmarched us down the aisle - a stereotypical 'shotgun wedding'. Thankfully my husband and I remain very happily married but I've never felt quite the same about my family since.

That would have absolutely been my mother's attitude too angie
My sister was asked to be bridesmaid for a neighbour's daughter; after the wedding my mum found out that the bride was pregnant and hit the roof ?, she'd never have agreed had she known.
DM even stopped being friends with two people whose daughters were pregnant and not married.

Incredible to believe nowadays.

Thank you downtoearth.

Ginny, I wonder if your MIL was commenting not on the unmarried mothers but on the fact that so many now seem to think it's quite normal to leave school, have a baby and then continue having another boyfriend, another baby ad infinitum. Any one can make a mistake but when some take it as a normal lifestyle it does rankle I'm afraid. My grand-niece has had one baby after another, never worked, but of course, with a bad back it must be difficult!!!

The thing is, angie95 - Evelyn Home wasn't nasty. she was very kind and sensible and gave a lot of good advice, BUT that was the way of thinking at that time, and we are all a product of our times, as someone else has said. These girls would have known from the start that they would expose themselves to shame if they were "caught" and the prevailing attitude was that they had transgressed against the rules of society and deserved it.

It all goes back a long long way. A daughter was always a liability if her father had to keep her for her lifetime, but an asset if she could marry and form a family alliance. That worked from royalty marrying powerful noblemen down to a farmer who could see that his grandchildren would have the benefit when his son-in-law inherited the small farm next door as well as his own small acreage and they could farm a larger area. The future son-in-law wouldn't want someone else's child to provide for, so if his prospective bride produced one, her marriagable value dropped sharply.

This didn't matter so much if her family owned nothing but the clothes on their backs, and precious few of those, so the "peasant class" were less fussy - and more prolific.

It was accepted that a young man of property would sow a few wild oats, but, of course, they would not be sown in the field from which he would eventually choose a spotless bride with a dower or marriage portion with whom to raise legitimate heirs. He (or his father) would make arrangements for the upkeep of a bastard but their status, and thence of his mother, was lower than that of the "proper" family, as much for their social position as their lamentable morals. Royalty had a habit of keeping illegitimate children handy and well-maintained, but they could afford to - and might need them politically.

With the rise of the middle class, the gap between those who had something to hand on and those who had nothing filled up with those who had a bit and would like to have more - and the ways of the haves moved down the classes. The rise of Victorian morality made the practicality into morality

And so it was that "good" girls were seen as better than "easy" girls.

There are things that we are censorius about now, which previous generations would be amazed at us for being concerned about, and other things which we think are normal, but perhaps future generations will look back at us with scorn for accepting. Actual cruelty is to be abhorred, but is too easy to judge the standards of others in retrospect.

I'm glad to say that, being as I was a wartime baby, and often, troops passing through small towns, were never heard of again, I'm pretty sure neighbours were very sympathetic and supportive. Different world.

Well said Elegran, perhaps in future generations we will be condemned for criticising girls who choose to have several children with different partners , divorce was at one time a scandal as was babies born to single mothers

'angie95*, I do know where you're coming from with the neighbours' possible disapproval! One afternoon , I saw my mother scuttle through the back gate. She told me she'd had to go next door to apologise for the condition I was in [. While I was more or less incarcerated at home, my friend also discovered she was pregnant, and her wedding was arranged very quickly. However, on the way to pick up his hired suit, her groom to be crashed his motorbike, and he was admitted to hospital with 2 broken legs. The wedding took place a couple of weeks later in the hospital. My mother very smugly commented, "Everyone will know N hasn't had her wedding night, now, but there's still a baby on the way." I can remember feeling quite disgusted by there words. I have to say that N's widowed mother was wonderful throughout. They had very little money, but lots of love.
Another thing has just come back to me: I do remember lying in the ward and this older mother (of many children) asking me why I wasn't able to keep my baby. I'd replied that I wasn't being allowed to, and that I'd nothing to give her. She replied that I could give her love....

Royalty had a habit of keeping illegitimate children handy and well-maintained,
Anyone with the prefix 'Fitz' to their surname may well have been descended from royalty and the name 'Fitzroy' means the offspring of the King from 'the wrong side of the blanket' as it was termed in those days.

Marelli you must be a very strong person and I'm so glad you were able to keep your DD.

I agree jalima Marelli is a strong lady,you certainly have lots of love to give your daughter and son,[hugs]]x

That's a lovely thing to say, downtoearth. Thankyou. x

I was sent to a mother-and-baby home in 1961 - a large old Victorian house which was very cold. Every day we had to strip our bed and place the folded items on top, only to be remade at night. We were all given chores around the home - my task was to peel mounds of potatoes and scrub the stone floors on my hands and knees (7 months pregnant at the time) - only allowed soda in the water, so after a while my hands were red raw. We had to attend Church twice on Sundays, and were only allowed out on other days if accompanied. I hated it so much, I ran away on one of my rare days out and caught a bus home. My parents were horrified, but fortunately the Home wouldn't take me back as they said I would only run away again! I was therefore secreted away at home until my time came and then taken to the local maternity hospital, where I was given a private ward so nobody could see me. I did end up having my baby adopted, as I was young at the time, but I have a happy ending, as my daughter found me some 30 years ago and we are the best of friends.

Carolespr, what a terrible thing to have to go through. I'm so glad you have your DD in your life again, and in such happy circumstances.

Oh Carolespr. What an awful start, but with such a lovely ending. Brought tears to my eyes. I'm so glad for you now.

My heart goes out to everyone who shared their personal emotions on here. We can be so cruel. {{{HUGS}}}

I asked my Mum about this last night and she said that where we lived, when a girl got pregnant she was made to get married and that no matter how many children she had, someone would always mention she'd had to get married. There was no chance of ever becoming respectable, no matter how long a couple were married.

How many adopted children thought they were unwanted and abandoned when these so sad stories show the other side, the side of mothers made to give up their much loved and wanted babies?

I was 13 when I got sent away to a mother and baby's home in 1972 and the emotional time I have is in my heart forever. So in the 70's it had not still quiet lost its stigma!

Anniebach The aristocracy had married mistresses so there was never going to be a problem if a child was conceived. This continued at the very least until World War II – think of Edward VIII. Actually, thinking of more recent history, even though we have far more reliable contraception…

Indeed Absent
But it wasn't all that great, even for the aristocracy.
Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire had a passionate affair with Charles, Earl Grey which resulted in the birth of their daughter Eliza.
Georgiana was banished to Italy for the birth and was given an ultimatum by the Duke - give up the baby, or suffer the disgrace and humiliation of divorce, and never see her beloved 3 older children again. Georgiana was grief-stricken at having to part with her baby.
Eliza was brought up at Howick Hall on the Northumberland coast by Charles' parents, and although Georgiana was allowed to make occasional visits, Eliza didn't find out that Georgiana was her mother until after Georgiana's death

Was there Harley street in Georgina Devonshire 's days?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BTW, the title of the book we're commenting on is "In the Family Way - Illegitimacy between the Great War and the Swinging 60s."
Which implies the 60s were when attitudes changed.

Another of my school-friends became pregnant during the time I was expecting my DD. Due to the fact that 'L' had 'nervous exhaustion' she was 'allowed' a termination. L's mental health has never really recovered and she speaks often of the baby that was terminated, although she went on to marry (another man) many years later, to whom she had a daughter.
At this time only married women were allowed to have the contraceptive pill (I believe?) and of course, visiting the Family Planning Clinic wasn't really done if you didn't have a ring on your finger.
Attitudes perhaps did start to change a bit, TriciaF, but this was 1966 and the attitudes of the older generation were going to take a long time to accept these changes.

Student nurse in 1965 in London. aged 20 in 1966. (Pre abortion act)
Got pregnant, the grapevine within the nurses home told of a local clinic which carried out abortions on ' mental health' grounds

I made an appointment, saw a Dr who asked if I would 'do something silly' if I was not allowed to have the abortion. I concurred and the short. ratherundignified procedure took place and I was on my way home for days off at my parents' house

I took to my bed with period pains
Only to be greeted by my wonderful emancipated mother saying she knew what I had done and we would never tell my Dad
But had I wanted to have the baby I would have had all their support

Following this she told me how she had nearly died from a back street abortion when she became pregnant with their child ( could not afford another) in 1950, so was so grateful I had done it properly

The irony of this tale is that I had been to a well know female Dr in London who would dispense the contraceptive pill to unmarried wowen. But I was in the early stages of pregnancy at the time!

I am fortunate that I do not regret this action, continued to have 3 children within marriage ( not to the father of the terminated child)

There were many of us who used this clinic and some on more than one occasion

At one stage of my working life I ran a single girls' family planning clinic and was so sad for those in fear of their parents' wrath if they had come to me too late, and needed a pregnancy test rather than contraception