Advanced search

What's for lunch today? Take inspiration from Mumsnetters' tried-and-tested recipes in our Top Bananas! cookbook - now under £10

Find out more

There seems to be a growing trend in having large families??

(61 Posts)
Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 12:56:32

when i was growing up nearly everyone had two children. It was the way it was. There seems to be an increase in people having more children again like it was in past generations. Only then they often had no choice i know.What do you think is causing this trend. Is it the celeb baby boom making it fashionble?? Some celebs ie jamie spears and charlotte church are talking of having another straight after giving birth????

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:01:59

And of course Angelina Jolie with her large brood.

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:10:19

hello, anybody out there. Is my thread too boring?

BuggerTheAnimal Wed 30-Jul-08 13:12:51

but the last two slebs still only have/will have two!!!

that is not a large brood my dear......brangelina obviously is a large brood, but not really aware of many other/any other slebs with that many!

well, apart from mel gibson....he has 12 IIRC.

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:15:44

your missing the point. Im asking what is causing the trend having larger families, is it a celeb thing or is it something else.The 2.4 children era seems to be fading.....

Mercy Wed 30-Jul-08 13:16:19

I can't say I've noticed tbh.

Most people I know have 2 or 3 children. If anything there were more larger families when I was growing up.

There does appear to be a higher incidence of twins these days (or maybe that's just were I live)

reban Wed 30-Jul-08 13:17:37

Hi im pregnant with my fourth and so is my cousin, yet we are both come from two child families. I dont really know why buti always wanted lots of children .. maybe because there was only me and my sister, 6 years apart, and as i was very shy i felt quite lonely. I had friends who had more siblings and there houses were always loud and busy and there was definately no shyness there!

BuggerTheAnimal Wed 30-Jul-08 13:18:51

well, I have five, and it was nothing to do with sleb trends at all!!!

it was just cos I found myself very bored growing up and always wanted many kiddies as all my friends with siblings (and those with several siblings) had the most fun.

and this is not a new trend......the new trend was in the 70's with just 2 kiddies as finally women wanted able to work and have a family instead of 'just' having babies.

large families were all the rage 40/50 years agowink

muggglewump Wed 30-Jul-08 13:20:35

I thought families were getting smaller?
Although I constantly get questioned over my decision to have an only I did think it was becoming more the norm.
Most people I know have two. In fact I know two people with onlies who have just had another but 8 and 10 years after the first, so more two onlies rather than two kids if that makes sense?

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:21:33

yes lots of twins here too! I only mentioned celebs because i think they and the media have made having a baby 'fashionable' and i was thinking do some people just want that part again and fail to look ahead. Theres a woman at my sons school with 6, the youngest is only 10 weeks, and she syas she wants another one???????? She's unuusual i know. I do think we live in a want it all now society and that does seem to include babies for some people i think.

wasabipeanut Wed 30-Jul-08 13:21:54

There is definitely a trend on the 'sleb side for larger families. There do seem to be more 3 child families around now. I seem to see twins everywhere - they were really unusual when I was growing up.

If big families are on the increase it does rather buck the idea that women are having kids later and later. The 2 trends don't really sit together.

Fadge Wed 30-Jul-08 13:22:07

I think that the children who grew up in large families often only want small families and vice versa, which is why it seems to be a generational thing.

I am one of two and want 4 children.

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:22:31

No its not a new trend, as i said earlier.

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:27:44

I think some people (my sister included) find it hard to accept that they are not going to have any more babies. Its like admission to older age, nearing loss of fertility etc. I can understand that. So they have one more before 'its too late' Just one therory. Im waiting for my sis to announce her 'little accident' as her youngest starts school this sept!

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:27:45

I think some people (my sister included) find it hard to accept that they are not going to have any more babies. Its like admission to older age, nearing loss of fertility etc. I can understand that. So they have one more before 'its too late' Just one therory. Im waiting for my sis to announce her 'little accident' as her youngest starts school this sept!

reban Wed 30-Jul-08 13:33:14

I guess in the past female celebs were expected to sacrifice having children for sucess, now it seems they can have both. So many are celebrating the fact that they feel able to have children at all and still be sucessful in their chosen field

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:39:40

its a shame that ordinary people think they can have it all without sacrfice. If i was younger, didnt need a c sec and hadnt suffered with PN depression after my last- oh and didnt have to go back to work straight away then i might consider another baby in about three years time (dh would have one now!!!) but its not practical and physically risky.I can think sensibly but i think many woman dont these days, Just as they must have the latest this and the latest that it its a baby they want then they are going to get one!!!!!!

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:40:55

going off the track a bit arnt I. Any more therories on the trend???

DrNortherner Wed 30-Jul-08 13:42:40

There is alos a trend for having 1. I know lots of onlies.

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:45:44

But will they remain oneies?

wasabipeanut Wed 30-Jul-08 13:46:10

I have to admit I consider large families (which I would personally classify as 4 kids plus) to be the preserve of the wealthy.

When you consider the costs of food, housing, possibly schooling etc. large families seem to be a luxury most of us can't afford.

It's a running conversation between me and dh - I would love 3 kids as I was from the 2 child nuclear familiy unit but he says no because we can't afford the third. I say we'd manage somehow. In all fairness given my age I think we're probably pushing it for 3.

theinsider Wed 30-Jul-08 13:50:31

Twins of course are more frequent due to IVF, also women delaying family due to career and then older and therefore statistically more likely to have twins.

Though women being older before they start means less time and less "ability", (if older ttcers will excuse the term smile ) due to fertility issues coming with age, to have a large number of children.

I believe the birth rate has increased slightly after reaching a low a few years back.

Not sure what point I'm making, none really. Just a few things to throw into the discussion.

Loriycs Wed 30-Jul-08 13:51:09

Is 4 kids the preserve of the wealthy. There is a housing association estate near us and they are certainly not wealthy yet they all seem to have lots of kids and be permantly pregnant?!?!?

Carnival Wed 30-Jul-08 13:53:48

There's also Posh, who has had 3 or 4 (can't remember).

muggglewump Wed 30-Jul-08 13:54:11

"But will they remain oneies? "
I think that's interesting. As I said in my PP I know two families who had definite onlies but have both had second babies with large gaps.
Obviously I'm not so rude as to ask why but I wonder if the pressure got to them. I know it all too well having an only who is almost 7 but mine will be staying an only as I've been sterilised

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: