Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

We're becoming a nation of only children: do you agree? And have a butcher's at our guest blog, too

139 replies

HelenMumsnet · 27/03/2013 13:02

Hello.

There's an article in The Telegraph today saying that we're becoming a nation of only children, with almost half of all parents having just one child.

The Telegraph article suggests that many parents are "stopping at one" largely because of the mounting cost of bringing up children.

Do you think this is true?

If you're a parent, do you only have one child? If so, is that by choice or not? And if it was by choice, how big a part did your family finances play in that choice?

And what are the implications, if any, of a generation of onlies who've had no siblings to squabble play with?

MNHQ STOP PRESS: In a guest blog today, MN blogger and mother of one Stephanie Pomfrett (who blogs over here) writes about her decision to be a one-child family - and why she won't be adding a sibling to the mix.

Do read what she has to say, too - and post your comments here or over on our Bloggers thread.

OP posts:
DontCallMeBaby · 27/03/2013 20:27

Oh, I knew the article would make me cross. People who have had one child through choice, through secondary infertility, other health reasons, relationship breakdown, financial reasons are NOT the same as an entire, vast, nation required by law to have no more than one child. Entirely different kettle of dim sum.

And as for 'log on to the mothers’ forum Mumsnet, and the reasons for having only “the one” sound simple', such bloody lazy journalism. Go to Mumsnet, read thread entitled "Only by choice - what are your reasons?" (or something like that), think you know it all. Ignore threads about whether PND was a factor. Ignore talk of secondary infertility. Ignore threads where one partner desperately wants a second child and the other doesn't. Ignore heartbreaking tales of miscarriage and stillbirth. No, those wouldn't be simple, wouldn't they.

Pshaw.

MrsDeVere · 27/03/2013 20:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DontCallMeBaby · 27/03/2013 20:14

Not my experience at all. In DD's class there are three kids who are definitely onlies (including her), five I'm not sure about, 11 who have at least one sibling, and eleven who have at least two siblings. Practically everyone I know with kids outside the school circle has two or three. The only peer group of which the nearly 50% thing is true is our NCT class - of eight couples three, probably four, did not go on to have second child. But I think the deciding factor there was age - the other two mums who definitely didn't have another baby, and the one I suspect didn't, were all 40+ when they had their DC.

I do wonder if this is a combination of misunderstanding the stats combined with some journo's London-centric anecdata?

Finance wasn't a factor for us anyway. It's an advantage now, being able to do more with our ever dwindling salaries, but had we wanted a second child then, biology willing, we would have had one, and done less.

LadyLech · 27/03/2013 20:05

I only know of two children who are genuine onlies. I know of others, but they have half siblings, from one parent's previous marriage.

Most of my friends have 2 or 3 children.

TiredFeet · 27/03/2013 20:03

I always assumed Ds would be an only as it took so long to get pregnant and, despite coming from a large family myself, I was pretty much at peace with that. I made sure he had a lovely sociable time at nursery and baby groups, and we did lots of holidays /weekends with friends and family with young children. However, just found out I am rather unexpectedly expecting number 2 and while I am happy I am also struggling a little to adjust. Financially it is going to be much tighter. I am sure we will adapt and love the new addition, but I don't think life is necessarily bad or worse for onlies, and I certainly think that it is possible to take steps to ensure they have lots of company and aren't spoilt. There can be downsides to being in a big family too.

Snog · 27/03/2013 19:18

I have one dd aged 13 and I think the "little emporer" tag is just crass and frankly offensive.
It's no surprise to me that there are more children amongst the very rich and very poor.
If you are a working mother it is easiest to have one child imo. I personally think this gives you a great life balance and have found having one child to be brilliant for our family. I can't comment as to whether having had more would be even better of course!
Economics very very definitely has played a part in our choice of family size. We live in a high property cost area and could not move to a bigger place without spending another £150k plus. We are two full time working parents and the costs of University seem huge even for one child.
I think that for mothers who don't work, having an extra child generally wouldn't be so difficult as for working mothers.
If I had won the lottery in my 20s or 30s I would definitely have had several more children - but we are all very happy with our status quo.

WrenNatsworthy · 27/03/2013 18:59

Didn't intend to have an only but failed to conceive a second and gave up last year. I have to say that I would worry about money if I was to find out I was pregnant with a second now though. We already struggle at times.

Guardian reader here by the way. [hmmm]

PainForLife · 27/03/2013 18:44

one child here - would love more but due to health reasons not possible plus have been a single mum for 3 years now (came out of a physically/mentally abusive relationship!!!). so no plans to ever get in a relationship again unless he happens to be a billionaire :)

I only know of 1 person with an only child & that is again due to health reasons. 1 friend with 4 kids & 2 friends with 2 kids.

perplexedpirate · 27/03/2013 18:35

One child here.
We stopped at one because we are happy.
I know people just hate that, so they write snotty articles about shit that has nothing to do with them.

morethanpotatoprints · 27/03/2013 18:19

I think as more families have both parents working, there are many saying they can't afford more due to childcare costs, not food, clothing etc.

Also many women are leaving it longer before having a child, maybe due to career. They only have time to have one child.

I know several who fall into each of the above categories.

MrsDimples · 27/03/2013 18:16

One child here. Through choice, can't afford more.

Wishiwasanheiress · 27/03/2013 18:13

Forgot to add, all have had or in process of second. 6 of 11 have since been made redundant following either a year off or flexi requests approved.

tunnocksteacake · 27/03/2013 18:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Wishiwasanheiress · 27/03/2013 18:11

Everyone I knew at work planned 2 from 2008 crash onwards as job security zilch. Have first, take a year, return pregnant, take a year, either return on flexi or hope for redundancy whic being city firms was extremely likely. A certainty if a flexi request approved.

RememberingMyPFEs · 27/03/2013 17:38

39yo expecting DC1 and am split 50/50 on whether to stick at an only or have 2. Suspect it'll be the one in the end (Age, finance, career, age, tiredness, age...) but I know I am DEFINITELY in the minority!
Rubbish article from rubbish rag!

prettybird · 27/03/2013 17:20

I vowed I would not have an only child after seeing the strain on a friend of mine at Uni when her mum was diagnosed with terminal cancer :(

However, two MMCs after having ds, I have to accept that ds (now 12) will be my only - and much loved - child. :)

It's not always a decision to have an only child. Nature plays a part too :(

EuroShaggleton · 27/03/2013 17:10

I really doubt it's true that there are more onlies around now. I don't know any and the families I see out and about all seem to have more than one child.

I was the only one in my class of 30 growing up. I'm not sure it's more common now.

lljkk · 27/03/2013 16:19

I am thinking of the adults I know age 40+ probably
1/3 child-free
1/3 one child
1/3 2+ kids.

IslaValargeone · 27/03/2013 16:13

I'm surprised by this too.
We have an only, through choice, but don't know any others and even after 11 years still get the odd raised eyebrow that she has no siblings.
My dc loves being an only, isn't lonely or spoilt.

wonkylegs · 27/03/2013 16:12

I don't believe this (and not just because I dislike the telegraph) Our nearly 5yo DSs only child status is a rarity in both his class and our friends & neighbours and can only think of 2 other families in this situation.
One through choice and one not.

We live in a well off suburb of a big city and most families we know have a minimum of 2 children and usually interrogate us as to why we only have one.
Currently we are getting ready to try for no 2 but due to my health this is enormously complicated hence the gap.
I know that this is purely anecdotal evidence but surely if the figures were approaching 50% we'd know more or at least there would be more families in the school with single children and we don't even go to the catholic school up the road where there seems to be an average of 4 children per family!!

EggBasket · 27/03/2013 16:10

Think this is a case of "lies, damned lies and statistics". Of course loads of parents only have one child, that doesn't mean they won't go on to have 12!

In my experience families which remain single-child are very much the minority. Not that I think it matters.

Fairydogmother · 27/03/2013 15:53

I was technically an only child as my sisters were vastly older than me (20 years) and I was incredibly lonely at times.

Think parents are much more vigilant in ensuring this doesn't happen now tho. Most of the people I work with have only one child too

unebagpipe · 27/03/2013 15:50

I have an only, as want my DC to have a private education- and can only afford for him to have one. If that makes me a "telegraph reader" Hmm then so be it!

AnnoyedAtWork · 27/03/2013 15:47

Yep, can't afford it. DD is 8. Would love another but (reasons in order of importance):

  1. can't afford it financially
  2. can't afford it career wise
  3. reluctant to do 0-3 stage again (now DD is very helpful and independent)
phlebas · 27/03/2013 15:44

another 'so what?' and also not my experience.

(I just did totted up the number of children my 19 closest friends & I have (no more babies planned for any of us) - 4 families with one child, 4 with two children, 7 with three, 4 with four and 1 family with six)

Swipe left for the next trending thread