To ask your view on the Radfords?(118 Posts)
Sat with my morning coffee watching 20 kids and counting. Listening to my two children fighting over a toy, wondering how on earth that many children can get enough/equal love and attention?!
(I know it’s none of ‘our’ business how many children people have.. but when you put yourself out there, obviously people will have an opinion)
I think the fact that he first impregnated her when he was an adult and she a child is disturbing.
I think she thrives on the attention of being pregnant and having a new born and both possibly have issues relating to their own childhoods and not being within their birth families.
I think the older children must be forced into taking on far too much responsibility for their siblings as there is no way anyone can give that many children enough attention.
Basically, I'm not a fan, but they seem to have entered the realms of Z list celebs where most of their income must.come from tv and magazine work - more cash for each new arrival - and I doubt they will stop until she's menopausal.
I believe she was 23 and he 17? How was this not an issue legally?
One of these threads was deleted last week but as you ask....
I find it really disturbing that not only did he get her pregnant when she was 13 and he was 17/18 but that this is massively glossed over by the media because they are such a “nice family” and don’t claim benefits (except I’m sure they have at some point not that it’s anyone else’s business).
And no I wouldn’t want that many children. I have 2 and 1 has additional needs and even before I became a single mum it was tough making time for both. Presumably none of the Radford children have additional needs otherwise it would make it even harder to make time for all everyone AND keep on making more babies to satisfy the parents addiction to shiny new ones.
See I thought they seemed like a thoroughly nice family when I saw them on the show introducing number 19 to the world at the beginning of the month.
I know absolutely nothing of their history, but they seem like a nice family- if a bit loud, but they would be with that many of them!
I struggle with the noise my two make sometimes, so the thought of having upwards of 10 in the house all at one time fills me with dread. They seem to manage though, and bloody brave to contend with that many! Not for me, nor for most I imagine, but fair play to them.
The first pregnancy is hard to get past. Tough for the children.
They make a fuss about not having state hangouts apart from child benefit but that is still a form of welfare. Plus, what about the cost of education and health care for all 20 children? I think it's incredibly selfish on their part as there is no way they can give each child enough attention individually.
I’ve only ever heard of them on MN. Lots of judgement too.
I think they aren’t harming anyone so live and let live.
i would guess they all claim tax credits as well i just cant see how that bakery could ever support them all
Er theres another thread where people are stating theor judgements. Why do we need 2?
They won't need the bakery to support them now they're 'famous I'm fairly sure ch4 or wherever their show is on will pay them
No, not harming anyone Quite apart from potentially harming their 20 under-parented children? But as long as they’re not claiming benefits it doesn’t matter, right?!
Anyone who has that many kids knows they can't possibly provide enough attention, care and love to them all. It's physically impossible. If one of the parents spend sixteen hours per day tending to the kids, for seven days in the week, in a single week that's less than six hours time per child. Not even one hour per day. And think how much of that time is disproportionately spent on the youngest, or doing chores and cooking. It's completely and disgustingly selfish.
I know people who grew up as one of ten who despised it as they had to care for the younger kids despite never having asked to be in loco parentis. They decided to never have their own kids as they'd already done so much child rearing before they managed to leave. We can say 'live and let live they're not harming anyone' but in our society we don't look the other way, rightly, when kids are suffering abuse or neglect. I'm not categorically saying they are abusing or neglecting their kids but it's not a stretch to imagine they do suffer some neglect and it's irresponsible to promote the 'look the other way' attitude when it comes to the safety of children, even though there's nothing any of us can do about it or for those poor kids.
I didn’t actively search for another one before posting this..
I'm currently pregnant with my 4th and feeling rather guilty about not being able to spend enough time with my older dds - 10, 6 and 2 - once the baby is here, I can't get my brain around how they look after twenty kids! I'm overwhelmed at the thought of four
"I believe she was 13 and he 17? How was this not an issue legally?"
Because it wasn't an issue then.
Their were still Countries with the marriage age of 13 and the press were celebrating the era of the 'Wild Child' (underage girls who were out clubbing/shagging. Mandy Smith was 13 and dating Bill Wyman 47.
You can't judge that on today's standards. I'm 50, me and all of my peers dated 'Adults'.
I think it's a lot to do with being in Care, for both of them. They are recreating the family that they wished for.
I don't know how anyone could cope and feel sane! My two ruin me most days. Whilst it was clearly not ideal she was pregnant so young the fact they have stayed together to me at least says they were meant to be, they (seem) happy and the kids seem balanced. Re the benefits fair enough they aren't claiming what many would but by my reckoning it's still at least £11k child benefit (and that's if they are under the newer lower system of less money for subsequent children which may not be, could be as high as £15k) and that's before any child tax credit so I do find that claim a little dubious. But on the whole I think fair play if you can cope you're braver than I am!
There are plenty of families with less children where the kids don't get enough parental attention. Everyone is entitled to child benefit!
There is nothing wrong with siblings caring for each other either. It's happened for centuries and doesn't necessarily mean harm is done. There are positives as well as negatives.
All families are different and you will find there are lots of people who think couples who work full time and leave their children in childcare are not good parents.
Whatever your family is like...someone will judge you.
Having less children does not automatically guarantee a happy family.
I don't watch this or even know about them but it seems obvious to me that the older kids help do the childcare and the cleaning etc etc just like they used to years ago. Families pull together.
In the current snowflake generation that is being brought up do we know that these children are under parented?
I wouldn't want 20 myself and I have more than most (4) however I am accepting of them wishing to do this and they have from what I recall with the one show I saw with them got family support.
Equal love I am sure they can manage. As cringy as it sounds love doesn't divide it multiplies. Is there enough attention and 1 on 1 focus? I have no idea however nor does the rest of us. When ever you do threads about single children you get those saying they loved it and those who hated it. When there are threads about siblings and large families you get the same.
For my 4 they all say they love their siblings and wouldn't want to be without them. However they dislike " admitting" they are 1 of 4 due to peoples reactions to this. I would suspect the 20 in this family would feel similar Some will love being a part of a large family. Others hate it and most of them not be all that forth coming with the fact they are 1 of 20 due to other peoples prejudice.
"i can't get my brain around how they look after twenty kids! I'm overwhelmed at the thought of four"
That's probably because you want to put adequate time love and energy into your kids. Once you hit 20 (and well before tbh) it becomes solely about meeting their basic needs (hygiene, food, clothing) rather than any deeper form of parenting. And they'll have their older kids doing a lot of it too so it's more of a team effort. Really awful.
Go back a few years and large families were the norm. Women often had loads of kids. Maybe not quite as many as 19 but I know of one lady who had 13, another 11, another 7, and a 10.
"Having less children does not automatically guarantee a happy family."
I haven't seen anyone claim that. It's naive to think that with numbers like that the kids are unlikely to suffer though.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.