If over the last 3 generations.

[Theodoreb]

People were only allowed two children would you exist?

I wouldn't my nan was child number 5
My mum child number 2
And I was child number 1.

I thought I would but remembered my marernal grandmother was youngest of 4!
So, no!

maternal

Yes. Grandparents were either onlies or one of two. Both parents were onlies. I was number 2.

No- all grandparents amongst the youngest from families of 6+

No. Both of my parents were number 3.

Dh wouldn’t either. His mum was number 5.

Depends. Are you allowed another if one is stillborn or dies in infancy?

God no, and neither would my full siblings but my younger step sibling would. Daddy was youngest of 5 I'm his third and DMums 4th. But without him she wouldn't have had 1-3 so the youngest one with new man is safe.

Erm, what about twins? DS3 was second twin out and I have a singleton

I guess if still born doesn't count and twins are ok as there is no controlling these things. Was just musing how many less people we would have in the uk if there were a two child cap.

No - my mum's mum was number 14 and her dad was one of 17. My mum is number 5 of live births.
Otherside my gran was an only and my grandpa one of 2 and my dad was one of 2 - so half my genetic material would have been available.

No, on a number of counts.

Our family is shrinking rapidly now though. And I can't see many of our children's generation having children. I already have quite a few cousins who did not have any children. The drop in birth rate over a few generations is staggering really.

1/10-1/1-1/1
1/3-1/4-1/1
I’d be ok.
I’ve got 4 kids myself though!

No. I'm not sure where my grandparents were in birth order, but my mum was third-born.

Nope. Fourth.
Mum third; her dad second, her mum either second or eleventh (or 16th if you're counting dead babies)
Dad first; his dad second, his mum third

Husband: second.
Mum first, her mum second, her dad fifth
Dad first, his mum either first or fourth, his dad officially fifth, but in actual fact first

No.

I am the 6th and DH is the 4th.

No my father was the youngest of 7.
Also going back to the 1870s...if a young widowed woman age 22(husband 22 died from a fractured lower leg) had not married a young widowed man age 23(wife died in childbirth)... my maternal great-grandmother would not have been born...so it is like the pivotal moment in our family tree.

No, my dad was the youngest of 11, and I'm sure his parents had bigger families too. I'm good on my maternal side, not that that helps! I have noticed in all families how quickly the birth rate has dropped down the generations.

Our family numbers stayed stable over three generations as the majority had two, one or zero in my parents generation. Plus quite a few emigrated. So overall my generation are less populous in the UK and only breaking even world wide. The big ( future) drop is happening now with very few babies (but there are a couple of adoptions in!)

No, one was 3rd, one was 6th.

Half of me would!

Erm, I'm not doing this right am I?

Yes. They weren’t int big families till my parents had us lot but I was the first

Bloody DH is fine. His Dad was 2 of 4 and his Mom 2 of 2, then he was 2 of 2.

Not when my grandparents are included.

Not sure about birth order for all my grandparents, but at least half of them had at least 2 older siblings.

And DH wouldn’t be here either.

No.

I'm a second child and my mother was the eldest, but my father was the third.

Going further back, I know that one of my great grandparents was the youngest of 21 children, though many of them didn't survive until adulthood.

No as one of my grandparents was the youngest.