Sue Radford, baby 21 is here..

[FortuneFrimble]

Daily Fail story here
21 babies! That's some achievement. I cannot believe her body is still in one piece. I feel sorry for those kids though. There's absolutely no way they can all have the individual attention they need growing up. Four kids maybe, perhaps 6 at an absolute push but 21 seems like collecting trophies for a hobby to me. It'd be interesting to see what families those children decide to have when the time comes. It seems like she's putting her own want for babies ahead of her existing children's wellbeing & that isn't healthy. I'm curious that she's practically guaranteed herself an endless supply of babies as her children have children. But they're supposedly paying for everything themselves so we're not allowed to say anything against them. I don't agree with it. Tell me I'm being U.

Not to be crude, but my lower regions are wrecked after two VB's! Extra flaps of skin and whatnot after being patched back together and stitched up, I simply cannot imagine the toll that 21 pregnancies/births would take on her body?! Especially with so little recovery time between each one!!!

This is all about THEM and their feelings, needing the attention and the limelight baby after baby brings. How anyone can think it's ok is deluded.

We have 4 and baby number 5 is due in the next 2 weeks.

We have :

DS1 - 16
DD1 - 14
DD2 - 8
DS2 - 4

DS1 is just going through choosing what he does next but will most likely stay for 6th form and then off to uni and is expected to get 5-7's in his GCSE's (so C+'s to A-'s).

DD2 is currently expected to be getting 6-8's but obviously we have 2 years left for her.

I don't think that a large family always equates to poor performance and therefore lower paid jobs however that said 21 is extreme!

DD3 was a very unexpected addition and I think if they had all been under the age of say 10 we wouldn't have continued as we just wouldn't have the time or energy for them all.

The elder 2 occasionally look after the younger 2 but it is only occasionally and for no longer than an hour and TBH we see a lot more families of say 3 who leave their younger ones with the teen/s than we do. The elder 2 also don't do anything around the house other than basic chores of washing up and the other dries up and puts away and tidying their own bedrooms.

We have found, that like most teens, the elder 2 only want us when they are hungry or want money lol but all 4 do get 1-2-1 time with us. The younger 2 every day for reading etc and the elder 2 as and when they want it.

We have a 4 bed house so until July the younger 3 will share one room (for around 3 months as she will be in with us until shes around 3 months old) as DS1 is doing his GCSE's this time and will need his own space but then DS2 will go in with him but we are planning on building a 'summer house' for the elder 2 so that they have some private space but I have no issue with 2 kids sharing a room. I had to share a room with my brother who was 6 years younger than me until I left home which wasn't ideal (especially when I started puberty) however I think we'd have been ok if he'd been a girl.

For us it works however I can't imagine how it's possible with 21.

From a lot of posts on here we, also, are excessive and selfish and can't give our children the time & effort they deserve & I think that it unfair and rather judgemental. Sure our life is busy and demanding & it comes down to having a relatively strict routine and preplanning but we do more with our children than quite a lot of people do with 2.

Bella, I meant in terms of whether they'll be high earners or not. And, as for being lab rats, they invite examination about their lives by airing them on TV and in newspapers.
Shirley, the younger ones might go to university. Do you have a crystal ball?

@Birdsgottafly I clearly stated impregnated. If you check her date of birth (22 March 75) and her sons date of birth (7 May 89) she had him 6 weeks after her 14th birthday. So actually your point of 14 being a whole year different is completely invalid and as the parent of a 14 yr old girl I’d disagree anyway, but regardless she was pregnant before 13.5years old.

It seems very unfair for them to carry on this lifestyle especially now the older siblings are suffering.

Older siblings looking after younger siblings is hardly suffering.

Seriously? That faux feminism that raises it's head with " {sarcasm} oooh we have a man's opinion "rubbish , it was a valid point that members of both sexes thought the issue was worrying

But I shall carefully remember not to seek dp's opinion on anything at all as his penis renders it automatically invalid

(Might be a bit of a challenge as he's the only one who understands which cycle is best on the dishwasher but hey ho)

I tend to concur with most pp that individual attention has to be sacrificed and the long term affects won't be seen for a while

@Lifeisabeach09 giving up university to help your mum is a form of suffering. Helping out for an hour here or there is one thing, pulling your weight is fine, but taking care of siblings because your parents have so many is not to be applauded.

Marie, I really don’t think your 5 rather spaced out children is comparable to the Radford’s 21, most posters are able to recognise the difference between a slightly more unusual (but still not rare or unheard of) family size and the extreme large families that run to double figures.

It's not ideal but I can't really get worked up about it. Yes, they may not get much individual attention once past the baby/toddler stage from the parents but they have each other and they are not suffering from neglect, poverty or abuse like many children.
As for the "burden on the NHS" etc, overall the children will no doubt pay it back in the future when they are tax payers themselves.

I have a Radford-esque age gap between my kids - but only have two and after that DH hauled his arse to the doctors very rapidly for the snip (totally his volition on the logic that my bits had been fiddled about with enough so it was his turn). Just the two pregnancies back to back absolutely battered the fuck out of my body - let alone getting into double digits!

Honest to god Lying and Shirley get off your high horses. You can clearly see I was pointing out it's not just women that see this as wrong. Men are allowed an opinion on this too. We are talking about a MAN and a woman procreating here, she wasn't alone in falling pregnant so many times. Ridiculous comments.

And then the fact they still pretend they live off the money from their bakery. That’s just comical.

Some bakeries do a roaring trade eg Christmas bakery in Guildford. We make a huge detour to go via there! They have about 6-8 people serving on a Saturday morning and lunchtime they're heaving during the week. Can't escape without spending £20 and filling the freezer.

Is their bakery a Limited Company? I suspect he's paid in dividends if it's a limited co, and she's probably paid her tax allowance to work for the business too. It's what I'd do.

Of course it's not only women who think the Radfords are selfish, stupid or whatever. My DH thinks the same as I do and I know of other men who feel the same way.

The double standards on mn are laughable. There is a thread where the OP is saying her 13 year old daughter doesn't want to share a room with her 3 year old sister. Almost all the replies are saying no way should they have to share, children need privacy, the older one needs a place to do homework blah blah.

The Radfords' children sleep in dormitory style rooms. They seem to have no individual spaces, no posters or pictures on their walls, no desk to do homework and no privacy whatsoever.

Do you think they can get space and quiet to do homework in the living room with all the other children? Of course they can't. Probably just as well then that the parents don't seem to believe in homework. They apparently don't believe in reading either!

I'm sceptical that they make much money from baking. Do they even have a shop now or do they just sell online. They are probably making more from television and other promotions.

Marie no one is laying into large families as such... like your 5, or 6 or even 7,8.

It is the extreme of 21 or selfish reasons AFAIC. Do they really think of themselves as a cohesive unit, that is impossible with that many. THEY want the children every year. Sue and Noel. The children aren't begging for another brother or sister. If those who understand the question were asked, I guarantee they would say no more please

I mean if the Radford children were asked without Sue and Noel knowing their answer...

I think it's bloody disgusting to have this many children nowadays. Incredibly selfish to existing children, and no way can they give each individual attention. Plus when I think of the environmental impact, it sickens me.

I honestly think they wouldn't have had so many if they had to pay for medical costs of pregnancy and birth, and beyond , schooling, etc. An absolute drain on the NHS and so on.

This intrigues and horrifies me. How can the children get any individual attention at all? It'll be interesting to see what her children decide when they grow up and leave home. Will they have small families, or no children at all?

I grew up in a family of just five which was bad enough, my SIL was one of 10 and a neighbour was one of 20. Both hated it and only had two children each.

I fail to understand why having numerous children is seen as some kind of superhuman achievement. Providing you're lucky enough to be fertile, and lucky enough to conceive quickly and easily, a lot of women could also produce a family into double figures, especially if the first child is born in one's early teens

The fact the majority of us prefer not to, doesn't mean it's some kind of amazing occurrence for this family. They obviously make money out of their reality show and their family business, so good luck to them. They have found a way of financing the life they want without it impacting on others, which is good.

The comments about the state of the mother's reproductive organs is incredibly distasteful however.

without it impacting on others, which is good

What about the impact on the children though.... a huge impact. Their emotional needs cannot be met. Let alone reaching their potential education wise.

GreatDuck, that's the point I was making really. We don't know we surmise. We use a crap TV programme which is heavily scripted to determine what this family are and aren't. How is that sensible?

I've no idea how loved or attended to the children are. I do know that there are plenty of parents who, with just one child in attendance, are ignoring them, playing on their phones. Do they do that all the time? No idea. Snapshots are all we have.

We know that this woman has given birth multiple times and has 20 living children. I have no idea what's going on in her head but I wouldn't want to be in her shoes. She's on some kind of mad-roundabout of giving birth and at some point - menopause or sooner, she will have to come to terms with the fact that her existence is changed. I feel very, very sorry for her.

Him? Mr Radford? Not so much. Regardless of the underage sex (because many children do that - reference deleted thread of 'my 14year old daughter may be pregnant - full of cheerleaders). He was also adopted. I have no idea what that is like - he and she both. In my view it's a perfect storm because neither has reference to being wanted by the person who gave birth to them (possibly for sound reasons, but still hurtful). These two, they've made a veritable army of children. To me that makes me think that wanted to demonstrate all the love they feel they didn't have but possibly they're hedging their bets that at least half will love and want to be around their parents.

It's said that love never dies... well I think that hurt never dies either.

Anyway, all surmise, I have no idea. I hope this child is happy and healthy and that the parents are as loving as they are on the programme. I wouldn't do what they have - number of children/appearing on TV but so what? They're as deserving of child tax credits as any other family.

Oh that was long, sorry.

I think 20 children is a mental amount, but at the same time I totally understand the overwhelming urge to have more. I’m not sure if it’s psychological or biological but I could happily carry on and have that many, but I won’t. I can’t afford it and it would be irresponsible and unfair to my existing 4 children.

Still might sneak in one more before I’m a grandmother though