A better word than 'apologise'?

Whats wrong with a simple "i am sorry that happened to you"?

Do hope the women involved will have received an apology from their family. One 16 year old and one 15 year old girl in the street where my parents lived had babies and they were not made to have them adopted (1963). I recall meeting one of the girls and thought the baby's name was weird, - Carl - I had never heard that name before.

What happened to these young women was unconscionable. I think it was caused by all sorts of social and religious conventions which were accepted in that particular era. I personally think that most of the responsibility rests with the relevant Religious Institutions which after the girls"partners"(the fathers) and the girls own parents had abandoned them should surely have been guided by Christian principles to help them keep their babies , not rip out their hearts as the infants were ripped from their arms. You'd think I had an axe to grind , I really don't , I'm not keen on religious hypocrisy.
I don't know if an apology helps or not . Albeit an apology on behalf of the government , it is being given by people who did not do the cruelty and would never have approved of it or voted for it.

For Cosssy, perhaps get your fnger a bit further from the outrage button before rushing to a keyboard?
Maybe try reading that comment from Mum2three rather more carefully, and to the end??

It looked to me that her "I know of several girls who found themselves in this predicament and they were lucky enough to be supported by their families. If there was abuse on the part of the church that is a separate matter altogether." made a key point, especially that re "families"??

Having (hopefully) digested that, then re-focus on the "So what are the options?" (6th sentence in -- best if you read the first five as well).

WHAT other options do you suggest were available --- bearing in mind the way people/things were in that timeframe?

Oh, and the reference to the Catholic Church is a reminder (yet another!!) that they have less understanding of the true meaning of Christianity than most Atheists. It's almost as if the Bible never puts the words :- Jesus, Love and Tolerance anywhere remotely near each other . . . .

My DGM was 20 and from a very poor family when she gave birth to my father in 1925 . Unusually for those days her parents allowed her to keep her baby and they brought him up while she went out to work to keep them both .

Cossy

NotSpaghetti

I think what is required is a meaningful acknowledgement of the terrible hurt caused.

By everyone.

Yes, a statement of regret, regret it happened, regret for not helping these women and their children, regret of the hurt, harm and damage caused.

An acknowledgement that reconsiders what happened was wrong and dedicating a future to ensuring nothing like it ever recurs.

A dedication to all mothers and babies involved.

This is exactly what I was going to say, an expression of national regret for the sorrow and hurt caused to all mothers and babies.

I think there should be a service held outside somewhere beautiful, with representatives from all churches and organisations involved. To make it inclusive there could be appropriate readings, prayers and songs from all religions, and make it clear this is an expression of regret from everyone.

Some interesting comments here. I hope better forms of words will soon take over.

I think an apology is a way of recognising publicly that what was done was wrong and it seems that those mothers want that recognition.
So for me that makes it a good thing that it has been acknowledged and apologising is a way to make clear that a wrong was done.
I hope this brings some relief to those mothers, even though their sadness about the loss of their babies can never be swept away.

Cossy

mum2three

Now let's just look at this rationally. An unmarried girl gets pregnant. The father either is too young or refuses to support the girl and his child. The girl's parents are not prepared to take on the baby. The girl isn't working so cannot support herself. So what are the options? Having the baby adopted was surely the only choice.
I don't know if there was a charity willing to support these girls but I don't agree with those who think it was the responsibility of the state.
I know of several girls who found themselves in this predicament and they were lucky enough to be supported by their families. If there was abuse on the part of the church that is a separate matter altogether.

I think your utter lack of empathy is just appalling.

These mothers were forced to give up their babies, they had no choice, babies were literally forcibly removed.

As a mother, I don’t think it’s right, the state were happy to step in and support those removing the babies, all they needed to do was to put something in place to support them and keep Mum and baby together.

Of course it’s not the “states” responsibility but it’s the right and moral thing to do.

In many cases though, the parents of the unwed mother were in collusion with it. You have to remember the culture of the time, when sex outside was considered not only unacceptable, it was considered sinful. Young mothers were considered unfit, and not deserving of any help.

While these places were awful, the alternative was being on the street, possibly giving birth there. It was considered that the children would be better off with a loving family.
Treatment of the young girls by Magdalen was part of their " penance" for their sin.
We are, like many things, judging history by our own current mores. I do wonder what THEY would think of the current solution of abortion on demand. How many young women are now suffering regret for that.

I do think we need to remember that the time this policy was introduced those implementing it truly believed that they were doing the best for these girls. We did not have the state help for these girls that exists now, parents often threw them out from their home and it seemed to many that for them to give the children up for adoption so that the girls could start again with a clean slate was seen as helping them.

50 years on, we see things very differently, but that is not a good reason to attack the characters and feelings of those involved and see them as cruel people.

What are we doing now that we think is being really kind and thoughtful that people in 50 years will condemn?

No one should apologise for history, are we still waiting for the Roman's to apologise for making us slaves, it's all a woke money making nonsense

Meaningless vote catching rubbish. I agree with monami
This is part of my personal history and I accept that things were very different then and the Catholic Church and Church of England also bear a great deal of responsibility for what happened. The current government had no hand in it so their 'apology' means nothing.

Perhaps the word”regret” might be more apt. Then again “sorry” might be used. Acknowledgement of what had happened and a public show of this regret in some form of monument etc.

Lovetopaint037

Perhaps the word”regret” might be more apt. Then again “sorry” might be used. Acknowledgement of what had happened and a public show of this regret in some form of monument etc.

I agree that 'regret' is a much more appropriate word. How can you apologise for something you haven't actually done?

grumppa

I agree. It would be interesting to know how the victims feel about these long delayed apologies.

My mother was one of these women; 18 years old and pregnant to a man whom she thought would marry her. She was sent to a mother and baby home and, after I was born, had to actually physically hand me over to my adoptive mother.
So I feel qualified to comment.
Being adopted has affected all areas of my life - even tho I had a materially good childhood. My birth mother carries guilt constantly. When we spoke for the first time after nearly 40 years the first thing she did was to ask for my forgiveness.
Of course, as far as I’m concerned, there is nothing to forgive her for. The fault was society’s; archaic thinking enabled by the state, which encouraged, legalised for and approved mother and baby homes which, in many cases, were places of torture for young women and girls.
So yes, I would welcome an apology from the government and am mature enough to understand that no fault attaches to current politicians. The blame is old but the hurt is still current.

Sue EH, I am sorry for your hurt, but the fact remains; the responsibility lies with the father and he is the one who should apologise.
The State does take financial responsibility now which is one of the reasons for the burgeoning welfare bill. If the grandmother or other close relative of the unmarried mother was not prepared or unable to support her there was no state help available, no benefits or child allowance for single children. Nurseries for babies closed after the war, and mothers without childcare were unable to work, therefore unable to earn a wage to support herself and the child, and certainly not able to rent a home.
You are judging what happened in the forties, fifties and sixties by today's standards; there simply was not the money available for free care then.. It was also impossible for a woman to prove who was the father of her child before DNA and many man refused to accept responsibility: how do I know it is my child, could be anybody's.
The fault was not society's who by the standards of the time did their best to provide for the babies they sincerely believed would be better in a stable married home.
Today I believe there are more unmarried births than legitimate ones, and I am not sure this is an improvement. It enables some fathers to shirk their responsibilities.

The State (and charities) did not force any unmarried mothers to go to a Mother and Baby Home. Their own parents did that.

The archaic thinking that teen pregnancy/illegitimate baby was a shameful disgrace came from the girls' own birth families. That's who sent them away to a MBH, to hide their fat belly and get rid of the baby then come home and pretend none of it ever happened.

For many girls adoption was the least worst option.

The alternatives, were an illegal backsgtreet abortion, being thrown out by their family broke and homeless. The social stigma of being an unmarried lone mother (in my youth) is unimaginable today. When I was a student in the 1960's; abortion was still illegal, unregulated and hideously dangerous , the Family Planning Association and NHS refused contraception to unmarried women (including me) , and pregnant unmarried students could be expelled from university.

Thisismyname1953

My DGM was 20 and from a very poor family when she gave birth to my father in 1925 . Unusually for those days her parents allowed her to keep her baby and they brought him up while she went out to work to keep them both .

Very similar situation in my family in the early 1930s.

We believe that my pregnant grandma (about 25 at the time) was given a choice by her parents - go off to a very uncertain future with the baby's father (who was older than her and also wasn't in a position to marry her), or send him packing and stay with them and they would support her and the baby, my mum.

My grandma chose the latter option. In fact it was her father who did most of the raising, because he was lame by then so couldn't work, meaning that he was the one at home while my grandma and her mum were at work in the textile mills. He doted on his unplanned granddaughter, and she on him.

I strongly believe it is right for the state to apologise now, as well as the Church of England. The apology should be to the adopted adults as well as the mothers.
I do not wish to give any personal details here, but I disagree with some comments here.

I think you said it winterwhite with deep regret...profound deep regret even. As apologies can't really be given except from the perpetrator.

eazybee

Sue EH, I am sorry for your hurt, but the fact remains; the responsibility lies with the father and he is the one who should apologise.
The State does take financial responsibility now which is one of the reasons for the burgeoning welfare bill. If the grandmother or other close relative of the unmarried mother was not prepared or unable to support her there was no state help available, no benefits or child allowance for single children. Nurseries for babies closed after the war, and mothers without childcare were unable to work, therefore unable to earn a wage to support herself and the child, and certainly not able to rent a home.
You are judging what happened in the forties, fifties and sixties by today's standards; there simply was not the money available for free care then.. It was also impossible for a woman to prove who was the father of her child before DNA and many man refused to accept responsibility: how do I know it is my child, could be anybody's.
The fault was not society's who by the standards of the time did their best to provide for the babies they sincerely believed would be better in a stable married home.
Today I believe there are more unmarried births than legitimate ones, and I am not sure this is an improvement. It enables some fathers to shirk their responsibilities.

I disagree. Of course social mores were different sixty years ago but even if the state thought that adoption was the best option for illegitimate babies I am absolutely sure that the torturous conditions experienced by so many in state or church run or approved mother and baby homes was not acceptable then or now.

M0nica

I do think we need to remember that the time this policy was introduced those implementing it truly believed that they were doing the best for these girls. We did not have the state help for these girls that exists now, parents often threw them out from their home and it seemed to many that for them to give the children up for adoption so that the girls could start again with a clean slate was seen as helping them.

50 years on, we see things very differently, but that is not a good reason to attack the characters and feelings of those involved and see them as cruel people.

What are we doing now that we think is being really kind and thoughtful that people in 50 years will condemn?

Monica makes a fair point about judging historical actions by contemporary standards.
One shouldn't attack the characters of all involved.
Did the religious institutions believe that they were " doing the best" for these girls? Given stories about the vindictiveness and cruelty dished out to young mothers ( not properly anaethestised in labour e.g.) I do wonder.
Monami made me laugh with her comments on the same subject :
"No one should apologise for history, are we still waiting for the Roman's to apologise for making us slaves, it's all a woke money making nonsense"
This sure does apply in some cases.
Can we have the Danegeld back, please ?
Some smart historian will tell me that we've already had it back. I don't have much formal history so I can take it on the chin.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

M0nica

I do think we need to remember that the time this policy was introduced those implementing it truly believed that they were doing the best for these girls. We did not have the state help for these girls that exists now, parents often threw them out from their home and it seemed to many that for them to give the children up for adoption so that the girls could start again with a clean slate was seen as helping them.

50 years on, we see things very differently, but that is not a good reason to attack the characters and feelings of those involved and see them as cruel people.

What are we doing now that we think is being really kind and thoughtful that people in 50 years will condemn?

Probably, telling pre-pubertal children that a new name and haircut will change reality. Or giving them hormone treatment that will affect their health long after they change their mind about the hair and name.

butterandjam

M0nica

I do think we need to remember that the time this policy was introduced those implementing it truly believed that they were doing the best for these girls. We did not have the state help for these girls that exists now, parents often threw them out from their home and it seemed to many that for them to give the children up for adoption so that the girls could start again with a clean slate was seen as helping them.

50 years on, we see things very differently, but that is not a good reason to attack the characters and feelings of those involved and see them as cruel people.

What are we doing now that we think is being really kind and thoughtful that people in 50 years will condemn?

Probably, telling pre-pubertal children that a new name and haircut will change reality. Or giving them hormone treatment that will affect their health long after they change their mind about the hair and name.

I agree.

mum2three

Now let's just look at this rationally. An unmarried girl gets pregnant. The father either is too young or refuses to support the girl and his child. The girl's parents are not prepared to take on the baby. The girl isn't working so cannot support herself. So what are the options? Having the baby adopted was surely the only choice.
I don't know if there was a charity willing to support these girls but I don't agree with those who think it was the responsibility of the state.
I know of several girls who found themselves in this predicament and they were lucky enough to be supported by their families. If there was abuse on the part of the church that is a separate matter altogether.

The father is too young for what???? For producing a child?