Mumsnet Talk

I think a lot of the complaints described are dependent on the family. There is 15 year gap between our eldest and youngest and I've never treated them as additional parents.

I think there is a difference between saying, watch the baby while I put the dinner on, which I would do when its the eldest and the youngest or the middle 2 and expecting consistent childcare. DS1 might have been left in with the 2 DC younger than him and told he's in charge in an emergency, but if I ever wanted a night out I would pay him to babysit the much younger ones and it didn't happen that often, I usually organised child care.

As I said both my DH and I are from large families, its something we really enjoyed and still do take a lot from. My parents and ILS provide lots of support, and I think having raised so many children, they are quite happy to have 12 kids staying over of a weekend which I don't think would be the case had we come from smaller families. Also we have a massive support network, there is always someone available to babysit or step in, I love knowing there are around 30 names in my phonebook who I consider immediate family.

Christmas and Birthdays can be a bitch though!

Mr Salim appears to be an attention seeker. He has staged protests and a hunger strike (against The Satanic Verses) and is a regular writer to the letter pages in his local newspaper decrying Britain and our so called anti-muslimism.
He has also been charged with benefit fraud.

Without wishing to get into a political debate, he and his immigrant wife (who appeared to be unable to speak English) are a prime example of why immigration laws should be reviewed.
Also surely a good example for the capping of child benefit?

www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news/78283/scrounging-rochdale-couple-with-11-kids-back-on-television

www.topix.com/forum/uk/rochdale/T01CGGGM01CDF85VC

It wasn't my JOB to look after my siblings - exactly, which is what worries me when it comes to these big families, that the elder ones can become like mini-parents.

I know that in my family, a couple of the older ones didn't help at all, and they both left home at 16. I (also one of the older ones) helped out because I liked to help out. I was never made to change nappies/feed babies etc. We might have been asked to, but it wasn't something that had to be done. I ended up living at home until I was 20. It is a very personal thing, fitting into a family, where do you come in the pecking order etc - I know my two older sisters just didn't like having so many siblings, and that may be part of the reason they left home so young. I can see that one of my younger brothers loves being a big brother to the other boys, he's always helpful and I see a lot of myself in him!

If there are many children in one family, and they all love being there, then great. But it doesn't work out like that for every big family, because every child is different. I think resentment can build particually among the older ones!

I'm aiming for 4....OH only wants 2! We shall see who will win

"most have gone on to have none or one or two children."
"selfish in bringing so many people onto an already over crowded planet"

So, in the longer term larger families are better for reducing overpopulation?

Selfish on so many levels. Not fair on the existing kids at all. Majority of people I know from large families did not particularly enjoy the experience - most have gone on to have none or one or two children. Even in adulthood the parents can't give much if any support as there are 4 or 5 other families to help out. Also selfish in bringing so many people onto an already over crowded planet because you like cuddling babies get a job in a nursery. I know my views unpopular but hey ho.

Ok so the under one element was scrapped. Have a look at an online calculator to see just how much they'll be getting topped up, it will literally be hundreds of pounds per week. I have no issue with it tbh but it's bollocks to say they get no state 'handouts'.

If she has stopped at 2/3 i truely believe all our lives would of been better.
She would of had more time to spread between us and herself.
My mum was a T.A for severly disabled children and was used to high pressured enviroments and dealing with non NT children, but she couldn't manage 5 kids on her own at home.
When i left home she had a breakdown because she no longer had a live in 'helper'.
It wasn't my JOB to look after my siblings, my sister had an accident with a kettle one day when i was looking after her and she still blames me for that, even though i was only just into double figures.

I don't doubt that there are lots of big families who have a happy life etc, but not every child you have is the same, one of them, or more may grow up to really resent having their childhood cut short because of having to help with younger siblings.
There is a certain amount of participation that naturally occurs with families of more than one child, however this increases to unfair (imo) levels when you exceed 4/5 children.

I remeber when it was just 2 of us and i used to go and play out with the other children and my closer in age sibling.
I have good memories of my childhood dispite living in refuges and moving about a lot until the last 2 were born.
I was a very shy, quite child and when i got to 8-9 i was bullied at school and had problems with school work, they thought i may be dyslexic and have an eating disorder but wasn't helped with homework, spellings etc.
My mum didn't have time to help me, and unless i was helping her i was seen as a burden.

OTTmumA Is that a result of being one of 5, though, or just being the eldest (particularly being 10 years older). If you had been eldest of 3 it might have been the same, do you think?

I am one of 5 and i hated being the eldest, i was nearly a decade older than the youngest 2 and had to do a lot of the housework and childcare.
I distinctly remember waking in the night and having to feed and change my youngest siblings who slept in my room after mum had moved them out of her bedroom so she could sleep.
I didn't speak to my mum for a year after i moved out and still don't get on with most of my siblings.

Sometimes this lifestyle causes resentment in the eldest children and affects their sibling relationships in a very negative way.
I have told my mum twice that she shouldn't of had so many, and i was suprised that she agreed with me, not that it makes any difference now though.

Thank you Visual and Sasha.

Should have added to my previous post I'm from one of 3 and my DH is an only child,both sets of grandparents have said there is no way they'd be able to cope with 5 children.

My two brothers are much much older than me I would have loved a sibling nearer my age and my husband would have loved a brother or sister.So we see our children as lucky as they have someone else to grow up with which is something neither of us had.

I think Soditall has explained it well. We have 5 DC plus other family members who live with us on and off. DH and I both come form large families and its how we thrive, other obviously wouldn't enjoy it.

Bottle of beer the under one element was scrapped over a year ago

Soditall - you sound like you have a lovely family life - sorry for the loss of your 6th child. I've got lots of siblings, and I think only one of us didn't like the large family!

I love watching this program.

I have to record it when it's on so our 3 youngest children can watch it the next day as it's on past they're bedtime.

They are fascinated by the large families,we have 5DC but they don't consider themselves as part of a large family.

I think Sue and Noel Radford are amazing and they obviously love they're children and work very hard to give them a good life and create happy family memories for when they're older.

The Salims the husband is a disgrace and I really feel like his poor wife needs rescuing!! The oldest daughters seem really lovely and I think they could go far when they're older.The 15 year old son is like his father loud,over the top and an arse.No wonder he can't get a job who would want to work with him he shouts even when he thinks he's talking he's bellowing.

I'm not keen on the Sullivans neither but I'll say no more about them incase some haven't seen last nights episode.

Having 5 children myself I don't agree with some of the misconceptions of larger families by some.

Our oldest don't look after the younger children that's mine and my husbands job,we chose to have our children they didn't chose to be born so we take our responsibility to all of them very seriously.

They do however play with the younger one's they're choice and if the oldest two go out on they're own they always come back with little gifts for the younger 3 it's never been expected of them or suggested to them.They just like to spoil they younger siblings because they love them so much.

They're all positive about the fact that we have 5DC.They have asked if we'd have more children,they'd like more in the house and they're all baby mad.

We sadly lost our 6th baby and they've never forgotten about the baby and will often have conversations with me about they're angel sibling and the fact that they miss them and really wish they'd been well and able to stay with us

Our children all get one to one attention and despite two of our children being autistic they're all doing well at school.

I think some people thrive within a big family and some don't.If any of my children had disliked the fact that there was another baby in the house or I hadn't been able to give them what they need or we couldn't afford them I would have stopped at 2.

I saw the program last night, it just looked such hard work.

MIL was one of twelve, they were all born in the 20s/30s. She says they were all 'beer' babies which doesn't sound great.

The older ones all looked after the younger ones from a very young age. The first five were born with 13mth or less gaps between them (her mum did breast feed, but apparently that didn't effect the spacing of her brood). Her mum was 45 when the youngest was born and by the time he was 14 both his parents had died.

Sends shivers down my spine, but it must be easier than it was back then, no social security, electricity or running water, at least there are washing machines and disposable nappies now!

V. morbid, but we don't know as she hasn't described any of the medical complication (or have I missed that part?).

My great-gran, had 15 children that survived and quite a few that didn't make it through pregnancy/childbirth (think 6), all the others got through to adulthood and that was years ago, way before the medical intervention available now days. According to my granddad they weren't uncommon in their area and when I've looked back through mine (and DHs) family history there are consistently large families, so I don't find the Radfords that shocking.

Here's a quick thought, a bit morbid though....how many of Sue's children would have actually survived, or could she have possibly died in childbirth during one of her labours, if it hadn't of been for today's medical technologies?

Missed it - shall catch up today on 4OD.

It's on tonight at 9pm.

I think you are maybe reading too much into the baby/bottle moment.

"No woman can go on indefinitely and she needs to put her health first for the sake of the kids she's got."

Well part of that is true. Menopause takes care of that. That is a definite end for women's reproduction unless they choose assisted conception. And the Radfords did put 40y as an age for their family to be complete. So they have considered that. As for her health - she looks marvellous and seems to have limitless energy so I don't think the pregnancies etc have taken much of a toll on her.

Chocaluvva has posted some good posts on this thread imo.

But you can take as many possible scenarios as you like, it's going to be a side effect of so many kids with such small gaps between them. Right you can hold your own bottle now, time for another. None of her babies seem to be allowed to just be babies before she's thinking about the next one.

I think she should enjoy the ones she's got without one eye on the next. Each baby she has means a little bit less time for her exisiting children. I've not once heard any of her kids speak remotely positively about having so many siblings. I have heard them talk about being replaced. It's like one big production line. It's an addiction to babies and imo a bit of an addiction to the attention it brings them. She's been bloody lucky she hasn't had a praevia or haemorrhage before now, known risks of multiple pregnancies. It doesn't matter how great a woman's body is at carrying babies and giving birth, there will be a time it says enough. Mrs Duggar's last two pregnancies have ended in a late MC and very prem birth. No woman can go on indefinitely and she needs to put her health first for the sake of the kids she's got.

"I don't think she was necessarily neglecting the baby on the floor and even if she was"

Didn't mean neglecting, meant ignoring. Very different.

"There was a baby who needed help with his feeding and his distress had to go ignored because she was too busy with yet another newborn"

I wasn't willing to read too much into that as I wasn't aware of what went on before. I don't think she was necessarily neglecting the baby on the floor and even if she was we don't know whether she'd just put him down, just put him down for 2 minutes, just put him down while the newborn finished a feed and then would settle them both to sleep. So many possible scenarios that don't include her ignoring the baby.

Having a lot of money would obviously make it easier but seriously, even if you never had to do another tap of housework again you still couldn't find enough hours in the day to give each child the attention they need and deserve. Unless you did it in block bookings.

I've got four, on particularly busy days they do tend to get relegated to TV babysitting because I can't physically do XYZ and see to them as well. Add another 12 to that mix and another 12 people's worth of general drudgery. Something has to give in a situation like that, in the Salim family it was apparently any kind of housework to provide those kids with a decent standard of living and in the Radford's case it was any individual attention.

There was a baby who needed help with his feeding and his distress had to go ignored because she was too busy with yet another newborn. People saying that it was the norm once upon a time to have huge families. You only need to watch Call The Midwife to see just how many problems that created for people, it wasn't desirable it was just unavoidable.

It's glorifying and bit of a crap situation imo, no matter how sugar coated it is because they manage to do it with him working and her doing constant rounds of household chores - oh and because they don't rely on benefits. Don't make me laugh! any idea how much they'll be getting topped up in child benefit and tax credits? It'll run to hundreds a week with that many kids and a constant child under a year element.