Two children or three?

[Helen GV]

I for one would need a more involved hubby AND some grandparents within spitting distance to remotely consider a third. People I could just call and say 'come and take my kids, now!, and who would.

I always thought I would have three as I have a brother and a sister and we all get along well.

I wonder, as so many people have said that they had thought three would be ideal (before cold hard sleep deprived reality set in), whether there is something inbuilt in our genes to make us want to increase the population! Replace ourselves and add one...?

[Convex]

an heir and a spare plus playmate!?

or lots of little workers for when we were all hunter/gatherers?

i wish we had grandparents nearby. can you imagine, oh i think i will go shopping this saturday, mum can you babysit, oh ok darling, why don't i keep them overnight and you can sleep in, no no i don't mind... *descends into daydream......***

[????]

Things that happened with our third arrival.....all within 5 years

Had to get a bigger car

Family willingness to look after them for a day or occasional night dropeed off noticeably from 2-3

Spare room went, so guests are a bit of a shuffle around, which effects friends coming to stay and Grandparets looking after them so we can have a night out and lie in.

But it's all a bit relative (geddit), my nan was one of 9 (all survived) bought up in Mile End on a Railyway Labourers wages

[????]

pS Even relatively small things like the whole family can't go swimming anymore etc have an impact

[Mrs TP]

I have never come across anyone who has regretted the children they had no matter how hard the circumstances. However I have met people who regret not having had more children.

We have three and I thought long and hard about making the leap from 2 to 3 but not about finances and day to day practicalities but more about whether or not I could look after 3 and give them all the attention they deserve.

Also if you step away from thinking of an extra number and rather a whole new person with their own personality, likes and dislikes etc then you can form a different perspective.

I looked at other families who had 3 and they all seemed to be surviving.

My only wonder now is just how many more swimming lessons I can put up with.

[sillywoman]

Each to their own of course but I would say it's more than doable. We've never had any help at all - no parents/grandparents, aunts or uncles who could 'take my kids', no cleaner, no nothing - so it was never part of our equations. My lovely Mr S has been as 'hands on' as he can be but in the early years he often worked 9am-11pm Mon-Sat so wasn't always around much.

I really am not a 'Mother Earth' type as my kids would be only too quick to tell you, but we both (MrS & I) were clear that we wanted a 'larger' family so we did it. I loved having 3 and found it much easier than 2. They were close-ish together - about 4 years between 1st & 3rd - so I don't know if that made any difference.

I found people were more inclined to be helpful & considerate of me when I was out & about with 3, than with 2. ANd the interaction between the siblings was, and continues to be a source of endless joy & fascination.

As I say, each to their own, but there's a lot of doom mongering about having 3 on this thread and I thought I'd just let you know that it isn't always "too much hard work". Maybe it depends on your attitude. Personally, for me, three was a joy.

But I agree about the swimming lessons Mrs TP - interestingly number 4 hasn't had any!!

[Pickle]

I have three, with 5 years between first and third. Admittedly we are only 5 months in, but it has been great. We've managed without a larger car as we can fit three seats in our existing one, didn't lose a bedroom as the older two jumped at the chance to share rather than using a spare room.

We don't have grandparents nearby, with one set being on the other side of the world and the others in Scotland and not hands on. My husband is a very involved Dad and structures his working day so that he starts very early in the morning but is home to help with bedtime most nights which is fab for both me and the kids.

My feeling is that once you have two children your life is completely geared up to kids, and the jump from 2 to 3 has been very easy.

[trinity]

sillywoman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Each to their own of course but I would say it's

> more than doable. We've never had any help at all

> - no parents/grandparents, aunts or uncles who

> could 'take my kids', no cleaner, no nothing - so

> it was never part of our equations. My lovely Mr S

> has been as 'hands on' as he can be but in the

> early years he often worked 9am-11pm Mon-Sat so

> wasn't always around much.

>

> I really am not a 'Mother Earth' type as my kids

> would be only too quick to tell you, but we both

> (MrS & I) were clear that we wanted a 'larger'

> family so we did it. I loved having 3 and found it

> much easier than 2. They were close-ish together -

> about 4 years between 1st & 3rd - so I don't know

> if that made any difference.

>

> I found people were more inclined to be helpful &

> considerate of me when I was out & about with 3,

> than with 2. ANd the interaction between the

> siblings was, and continues to be a source of

> endless joy & fascination.

>

> As I say, each to their own, but there's a lot of

> doom mongering about having 3 on this thread and I

> thought I'd just let you know that it isn't always

> "too much hard work". Maybe it depends on your

> attitude. Personally, for me, three was a joy.

>

Absolutely Sillywoman - sometimes I think you are me.

I get so many gasps or looks of admiration when I say I have 4 when really it doesn't (often) feel too demanding. Having lots of children can be fun - for parents and children.

Often it depends on your own family background. Both hubby and I are one of 5 children and my mother was one of 13 children so really my family seems rather small (and quiet) in comparison.

[Mrs TP]

I am full of admiration (and maybe a slight pang of jealousy) for those of you with four - congrats and well done!

I am finished at three, well unless I have a v. late Cherie Blair moment ...

[gwod]

Having enough money or car space or bedrooms or time was not factor in deciding to have our 4 children (though we dont have enough of any of them!) It was driven by a viceral and primal human need to know and love them. I certainly would have thought about having more had it not been medically unadvisable. Certainly there are compromises - we find it hard to travel overseas, fit in a car, will never be able to provide everyone with their own bedroom etc etc, but the upsides are fantasic and most mealtimes are a small party! Totally agree with Sillywoman that 1 is the hardest work. And wanted to reassure ???? that the swimming years will return and be even more fun when there's more of you to play in the pool.

[dulwichgirl2]

Gwod, I think a lot of people have that visceral urge initially but then logic kicks in and issues such as cost, return to work, loss of career progression, time and attention for each child prevail.

I do know of a family of 13 however (in my generation). The children are now in their early 30s to late 40s, no twins. Those I have spoken to said they hated the feeling of being SO unusual. Be careful....it is a slippery slope from 3 to 13. ;-)

[louloulabelle]

We are expecting no.3

I'd never have had any if we had thought about finances too much etc, you just make it work within your budget.

Yes it's having impact before babies even arrived as having to change car and our flat won't do much longer as only 2 bed and first two share as it is, worried about logistics, not being able to take them swimming as all 3 will be under 4, not being able to buy family tickets or all going on a ride etc together BUT we have the best fun with our two little ones and having a third is a blessing and we will make it work !

My opinion is that its an emotional decision not a right or wrong. Yes these days finances come into it but if you feel it's what you want you can find ways to make it work!

[Otta]

I'm interested, did those of you with 3 or 4 have to convince your other halves at all?

Someone my wife knows wanted a third, her husband told her he really didn't. Eventually he was more or less told to have another one or lose what he had. They had another, and he loves him. However, to me that just doesn't seem at all fair.

Not suggesting any of you acted that way, but interested whether any convincing was required.

[treehugger]

I have 2 who were 16 months apart, a boy then a girl. Having done that I never wanted or even thought about having a third. It was great to have got all the nightmare of sleepless nights over within two years. They grew up well together (both very sporty) and it was great they had each other to play with. One Christmas my daughter did ask for a baby sister...We have always been able to do things as a family together without havign to go at the pace of a littler one.

[Saffron]

louloulabelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We are expecting no.3

> My opinion is that its an emotional decision not a

> right or wrong. Yes these days finances come into

> it but if you feel it's what you want you can find

> ways to make it work!

Congrats on expecting no 3. :)

I have a theoretical question off the back of your comment. It's not aimed at you personally.

I'm struck by the very middle class tone of a lot of the comments here in general (not that there's anything wrong with that!). If one doesn't have to think too much about finances, then can it be presumed that one has at least enough resources not to resort to public funds?

I'm just wondering, on the finances angle, what if going from 2 to 3 (or 1-2, 3-4, etc) means the difference between being a financially independent family to needing public funds, then should that make a difference?

[sillywoman]

Otta MrS gulped & paled a bit at number 4 but is now lobbying for number 5. I've put my foot down - I know my/our limits!

[Pickle]

Otta, in our case it was Mr Pickle spearheading the campaign for #3 (and I'm pleased he did)

[Saffron]

Mr Saff would also like more, but I've said no, based largely on the fact that we simply could not afford to do so, nevermind other factors.

[MAK]

kristymac1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I always find threads like these a little odd

> (sorry), there was another a while back on 'what

> is the 'best' age gap to have between kids'.

> Numbers are irrelevant and what works for one

> family could be hellish for another. I guess I'm

> also sensitive to those that dont have that

> choice, many would love to debate the pros and

> cons of having more kids based on financial or

> logisitical issues, but they simply dont have that

> choice or expectation.....

Well said.

[louloulabelle]

Saffron we are not wealthy , we are barely comfortable but money isn't always the issue. People have more kids than us with far less and don't expect 'public funds' as you put it.

We work hard at budgeting to give our family the best we can. We aren't in the Dulwich elite of having our kids down for private school or going to every 'toddler group' going but life does not revolve around money and being middle class. We punch above our weight by living here in leafy Dulwich and soon with 3 kids we will have to move but why not aim high if you can make it work even if for a short time.

We would never have had kids if we had thought about the cost but the joy of them far outweighs what we sacrifice .

So much of people's income is on material things, food wastage and socialising and visits to the nail bar etc and for us having kids far outweighs those things now.

Maybe we are naive not considering the financial cost but I'm one of 4 and my family are not wealthy but showed me it can be done. You don't have to live in a ?million house, drive the latest BMW X5 and have the kids name down at ducks to be able to 'afford' more than one child.

[susyp]

For those reading with just one, I just wanted to post on the benefits of one - and stick up for the onlys!!! (more is good of course , i think each number has it's own benefits!)>

I have one, not through choice, but now that she is 4 I am beginning to see the benefits of it. For example, now in the playground I can often sit down and chat or just chill while parents of my daughter's friends race around after their younger siblings! I did get in a situation where I was often helping said parents chase around and recently I have thought - hang on - if I am to only have one I will take these benefits - so I don't tend to help out those with a zillion kids anymore! I am really enjoying the one on one time I get with my daughter, shopping, playing, cooking, day trips etc. A friend with 3 was discussing this with me and saying she finds it really hard to do that with any of her children. I am looking forward to organising playdates for my daughter without having to balance it around other kids timetables etc. And soon, we are looking forward to travelling again after a 4 year hiatus.

Not sure having one is cheaper than 2 but we do have plenty of space because of it and I really am not sure I could cope with a new influx of toys!!

Just a little aside posting!

Susypx

[Saffron]

louloulabelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron we are not wealthy , we are barely

> comfortable but money isn't always the issue.

> People have more kids than us with far less and

> don't expect 'public funds' as you put it.

>

No, that's not quite how I put it. I'm not talking about people "expecting" public funds, I'm talking about families who actually couldn't survive (ie, couldn't buy food) without recourse to public funds. There is a fundamental difference between those two situations*. Also, there are many families who desparately don't want to be on benefits, so they choose not to have more children. Either way is not an easy decision.

*And most definitely was not referring to your family in particular. You sound like you're doing great with your family! Your post simply gave me food for thought about the difficult choices other people face, that's all. xx :)

[amydown]

Interesting one Saffron. Having another child and unexpectedly having to rely on public funds (change in circumstancs) might happen and if that's the case, fair enough. However, having another child when the parents know for sure that they will end up relying on public funds as a direct consequence, doesn't sit comfortably with me.

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> louloulabelle Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Saffron we are not wealthy , we are barely

> > comfortable but money isn't always the issue.

> > People have more kids than us with far less and

> > don't expect 'public funds' as you put it.

> >

>

> No, that's not quite how I put it. I'm not

> talking about people "expecting" public funds, I'm

> talking about families who actually couldn't

> survive (ie, couldn't buy food) without recourse

> to public funds. There is a fundamental

> difference between those two situations*. Also,

> there are many families who desparately don't want

> to be on benefits, so they choose not to have more

> children. Either way is not an easy decision.

>

> *And most definitely was not referring to your

> family in particular. You sound like you're doing

> great with your family! Your post simply gave me

> food for thought about the difficult choices other

> people face, that's all. xx :)

[Fuschia]

Except all these children will contribute more over their lifetime, ESP to future pensions, then they cost I'm benefits to start with!

[Otta]

louloulabelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron we are not wealthy , we are barely

> comfortable but money isn't always the issue.

> People have more kids than us with far less and

> don't expect 'public funds' as you put it.

>

> We work hard at budgeting to give our family the

> best we can. We aren't in the Dulwich elite of

> having our kids down for private school or going

> to every 'toddler group' going but life does not

> revolve around money and being middle class. We

> punch above our weight by living here in leafy

> Dulwich and soon with 3 kids we will have to move

> but why not aim high if you can make it work even

> if for a short time.

>

> We would never have had kids if we had thought

> about the cost but the joy of them far outweighs

> what we sacrifice .

>

> So much of people's income is on material things,

> food wastage and socialising and visits to the

> nail bar etc and for us having kids far outweighs

> those things now.

>

> Maybe we are naive not considering the financial

> cost but I'm one of 4 and my family are not

> wealthy but showed me it can be done. You don't

> have to live in a ?million house, drive the latest

> BMW X5 and have the kids name down at ducks to be

> able to 'afford' more than one child.

Good for you.

By the way, move to Sydenham, it has MUCH nicer housing, and is MUCH more leafy ;-)