Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Larger families

Find out all about large family cars, holidays and more right here.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

I know it's not that large, but what's it like with three?!

59 replies

anotherbadnight · 31/07/2008 16:15

We have two, aged 3 and 1, and I can't stop thinking about having another - or rather having an inner debate over it and discussing it with dh. Any pros and cons anyone would like to share would be great!

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

juuule · 31/07/2008 16:23

Great

BlueDragonfly · 31/07/2008 16:30

i am so far finding it easier having 3 than i did with 2. What i mean is that i found going from 1 to 2 incredibly hard but 2 to 3 less so. I still got PND but thats by the by! AT the moment they are 5, 3 and 5 months so my opinion changes weekly

Original poster

anotherbadnight · 31/07/2008 18:35

that's interesting - I do find it easier having lots of children in the house (as in having little friends round) than just having two as they occupy themselves happily (ds is very keen on having me play with him all them time when it's just the 3 of us as dd is too little at the mo).

but then I don't have to put them all to bed every night and deal with them when more than one has a bad night's sleep! we worry about travel and logistics and things too.

OP posts:

butwhybutwhy · 31/07/2008 18:38

Mine are nearly 5, nearly 2 and nearly 8 months.

I have to admit sometimes its quite hard. Like if they are all demanding at the same time and the bedtime routine is a bit of a snotter when dh is at work.

Other than that its blissful

Original poster

anotherbadnight · 31/07/2008 18:42

yes - when it's meltdown time round here and my two are being v demanding I do think 'how could I manage with another one when this stresses me out' - this is why we are not throwing ourselves into trying ASAP and I was keen to get thoughts!

do you have to be some kind of zen-like saint or very organised - neither of which is me)?

OP posts:

butwhybutwhy · 31/07/2008 18:55

Well I am the most disorganised half a job person ever.

I do think having a good routine and being organised is the key.
Otherwise things can get a bit out of hand IMO.

tots2ten · 02/08/2008 15:14

I found it easier going from 2 to 3, than from 1 to 2. but then going from 3 to 4 and then 4 to 5 even easier. mine are 10yrs, 8yrs, 4 yrs, 17mths and 11 weeks.

Bronze · 02/08/2008 15:16

A lot lot easier going from 2 to 3 than from 1 to 2. I love having my three and would add to them like a shot, hence hanging around on this board. DH thinks otherwise

unknownrebelbang · 02/08/2008 15:18

Entertaining...

I also found going from 2 to 3 easier than 1 to 2.

whenyouarethemoon · 03/08/2008 10:02

My three are each four years apart, and would have another if I was ten years younger. I thought a third would be hard work, but think it's actually easier.
I agree about them having someone to play with-the younger two are girls and play together most of the time without much bickering, and love having an older brother. It might be easier for me because of the age differences between them all, though.
I am not hyper organised, and definitely not saint like-my patience level has dropped with each child.

psychomum5 · 03/08/2008 10:06

three was *great

going from one to two was really hard, but from two to three was a delight and a doddle (altho I am looking back thro rose tinted glasses here)

I loved having three

four and five were quite entertianing tho!

potoftea · 03/08/2008 10:20

Found having 3, really active, but in a nice way. Like there is always something going on, kinda way. Of course my youngest is 14 now so maybe I've forgotten the worst bits.

On a practical side however; family members would sometimes take 2 off for a few hours, (to the cinema or beach or whatever with their families), but never 3.
Getting a table for 4 in a restaurant is a lot easier than a table for 5.
Holiday packages tend to be geared towards 2 adults, 2 children sharing an apartment; less bargains to be got in bigger sizes.
And "family tickets" are also often for 4 people.

Not really reasons not to have another child, but things to get annoyed about in advance if you want.

castlesintheair · 03/08/2008 10:27

Having 3 is great. It's harder work in the early days but the more DCs you have the more entertainment they have on tap.

There are irritating things as potoftea says like everything being geared towards 2 adults, 2 kids and less offers of help from family (on none in my case ). But as a mother I have got better at it imo and going from 2 to 3 is definitely so much easier than 1 to 2.

reban · 03/08/2008 13:51

going from two to three is easier in the sense that you have become more grounded as a parent and pretty much know how to handle anything by that point!
Also although things are aimed at the standard 2 adult 2 children family your should still be able to fit into a standard size car and three bed house. Your kids will (supposidly) be better at sharing and taking it in turns and i have def found the more there are the better they are at amusing themselves and playing together.
As for bedtime we have just put our youngest two, ds1 aged 3 and ds2 in bunk beds sharing a bedroom. We expected it to be chaos but actually its worked out really well and has cut down the length of time it takes to get them ready and into bed.

girlsallaround · 03/08/2008 14:02

hmmm, i found 2 much easier than one. i am now pg with number 3. i have dd 3.5yrs and dd 2yrs...

i was in the same place a little while as you, trying to decide... i was thinking yes it would be great and my dh was saying, not yet, two is so easy now that they are both going to sleep at the same time....
he convinced me and then what do you k now, i found out i was pg!

i am looking forward to it, even though i am sure it will be more work

scorpio1 · 03/08/2008 14:03

3 is fine, you will hardly notice the shift! Mine are 6, 3 and 15 weeks. all good

girlsallaround · 03/08/2008 14:08

i want to continue working and i hope i will not feel like i don't have enough quality time with each child!

tortoiseSHELL · 03/08/2008 14:20

3 is lovely - always stuff going on, you don't need to be 'play mate' all the time. The time it is hard I find is after school, when there are various activities to get to, and the littlest one ends up being ferried to gym/swimming etc, and having to be entertained while the older ones do the activity.

Sidge · 03/08/2008 14:26

I love having 3 but do find it hard work - it's hard trying to give them all some individual attention, but it's not helped by the fact that my DH is away a lot and we have no family support.

3 is great, I love seeing all my girls (9.5, 4.5 and 23 months) mucking about together.

But it's harder to get a babysitter for 3 than 2, childcare for 3 is extortionate if you plan to work, and it's pretty hectic running round after 3, especially if they all have differing needs and social activities. Eg obviously my 9.5 yr old doesn't want to do things that the other 2 can do, but isn't quite old enough to go off on her own for any length of time.

But I love having 3 and would have quite liked another one!

girlsallaround · 03/08/2008 14:33

yes this whole childcare issue grows more than you would estimate when adding the third...

reban · 03/08/2008 15:29

especially if you have two close together. My youngest two were only 14 months apart and that meant i could not return to work until my mom retired when my youngest was just over 1 as the cost of having them both in nursery, plus my oldest in before after school club was basically my salary and i would be working for nothing. Def something to consider if this is going to effect you.

RuffleTheAnimal · 03/08/2008 15:32

i had 3 in 2.5 yrs and i struggled quite a bit with PND and the overwhelmingness of the workload and responsibility. now the youngest is 2.5 its easing a lot. and they are fabulously close to each other.

but thats anecdotal. there are pluses and minus for everybody and we're all individuals so i would not like to comment on your situation (or anyone elses)

1dilemma · 03/08/2008 15:38

AM I aone in finding 1-2 MUCH easier than 2-3? I do have particularly rowdy dcs but I don't have enough hands one goes one way the second another and the third (who is more work then the other 2 put together goes in a third)

Suddenly I'm stuffed!
I've even got a double so I can pin dc2 (3.5 into it)

foxythesnowfox · 03/08/2008 15:46

the thing is, have 3 and no one is left out. Some people have a second to keep number 1 company, but truth is, someone is always left out - you have to factor yourself into the equation you see.

I had 3 in 3 years. DCs 1& 2 would play
together as DC3 napped. Suddenly I had an unexpected hour in the day to myself .

Trouble is,when you 'v
e got 3, it makes 4 seem so very do-able
apologies for typos, dc4 'helping;'

1dilemma · 03/08/2008 15:59

SO is 4 worse than 3 for you foxy?!

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread