To think 22 kids is...a lot ?

[GaaaaarlicBread]

We were talking about The Radford Family at work today . They are currently pregnant with their 22nd child (one of their babies , I think their 15th, though was born sleeping). So they’ll have 21 in the house.
I am all for big families , my Dad is one of 8, I have 19 cousins , So my family is pretty big although my husband and I personally want 3 maximum. I’m one of 3 also.
Am I being unreasonable to think 22 kids is quite OTT?? Mixed views in our office , ranging from ‘money scroungers’ ‘she’s obsessed and controlling the husband’ and ‘she wants the attention’

Just want your opinions really ! I think it’s a bit cruel to the other children as I reckon they probably have to help more than they should , but not bothered about the money bit as they do own their own pie business so they do work !

I think it's way too many, pretty selfish of them and makes me think they must have mental health issues.

In 2018 they reportedly earned just under £50,000 from the pie business.

Suspiciously, I can't find their business at all on Companies house (unless they've expanded out into a similarly named Electrical company)

There's not a chance in hell that family could survive on £50k.

The online child tax credit calculator says that they'd be getting about £2,390 per month from just child tax credit.

BUT £85k a year still doesn't seem enough to look after that many children.

They took all 20 of them to Disney World in Florida last year. HOW?!

They took all 20 of them to Disney World in Florida last year. HOW?!

Physically - who knows

Financially - it was gifted

*£75k a year, sorry my maths fell out

@Lolwhat yeah none of my business at all I know , just wanted to have a bit of banter :)

Thanks to @Venger I can't get the image of sheepskin condoms out of my head. I'm imagining them to be like little tiny slippers!

Leave her be is my opinion, doing nothing wrong. He seems more than happy too.

I have four am most people are shocked by that. With four it's hard to give each child good quality 1:1 time which to me is at least 30 mins long. I can do that but its hard going. My teen moans about his non issues, my preteen talks a lot of nonsense mostly, my youngest is has asd so no high brow convo but neither the less its intense exchanging conversations with him. My daughter is a whirlwind so adjusting from politics and region, to nose picking, to where did you get this bruise? To instilling a basic rule and why in one day and I'm done.

In reality I might do politics religion and skin care with my teen, repeat a socail rule for the 200 million time to my toddler and just surface chit chat one day with the middle two and then swop the more intense attention around as the need arises.

So I have no idea how they cope. I do somewhat like the idea of having a large family. But to me that's six kids. If I had a 18 - newborn over 6 I could do it well. But I would need to have nothing else going on.

I dont judge, idea seems nice but I guess the reality is hard work.

By 30 mins I mean alone 1:1 in a continental period of time, no other kids in the same room. Of course I interact 3pm-8pm with all but it's more 'no idea where your shoes are, yes I will make you a drink, here's the billionth snacks, what's the smell, who peed on the seat, what did to do at school " level

The term "stillborn" is well understood, respectful and, most important, accurate. "Born sleeping" isn't.

If we want to be most accurate then the baby they lost is actually a late miscarriage. The Radfords however refer to him as being stillborn, sleeping Angel, gained his heavenly wings and quite a few other things so I think to ridicule that is most inappropriate.

Irresponsible in the extreme, an object of pity. Those are my thoughts on the Radfords.

The term "born sleeping" is perfectly respectful if that is the one the family affected wish to use. Nothing wrong with it at all.