Active discussions

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Original poster

How many children would you have if money wasn't an option?

103 replies

Lsquiggles · 06/12/2019 10:18

I have a 5 month old DD and recently had a discussion with my partner about how if money wasn't an issue we'd probably want 3 or 4 children but due to the expense and the fact we have a 3 bed house we will most likely settle on 2 children, 3 at a push.

Would you want a large family if money/living capacity etc wasn't an issue? Smile

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Set a reminder
Wantarefund · 06/12/2019 23:22

I’d have three altogether if money were no object.

Emmapeeler1 · 06/12/2019 23:23

I would have had three (and no more). But although money was a factor in sticking to our two, the main reason was because DH couldn’t think of anything he’d less like to do than have another.

bellsbuss · 06/12/2019 23:28

We have 4 but would have loved 2 more.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

3-6 months old Babies & sleep Families General parenting
MrsApplepants · 06/12/2019 23:32

Still just the one. Only ever wanted one child.

neonglow · 06/12/2019 23:34

4

TheVanguardSix · 06/12/2019 23:35

I used to think 4-5 but that’s just not right for me. I love my 3 so much. The balance is perfect. We can raise them comfortably and I can focus on my own interests and give quality time to each one of my kids without feeling like I’m mentally and emotionally threadbare.

HalfBrick · 06/12/2019 23:37
  1. Main thing putting me off is endless washing and cooking and shoe/coat storage 😄. If we were loaded I'd pay someone else to take the drudgery aspect away and enjoy the kids. We'd be able to afford holidays and a bigger car/house too.
lazylinguist · 06/12/2019 23:38

The same 2 we have. I had no desire for any more than 2.

LaurieFairyCake · 06/12/2019 23:39

None. But I'd have a dozen rescue dogs.

RowenaMud · 06/12/2019 23:41

I’d have had two if money was no object and if I could afford a nanny to help me.

I have two but we struggle with dividing our time, I stress about providing financially for them and the reality is we should have had only one that we could give undivided attention and more opportunities to like private school, more expensive activities and two or three annual holidays. Instead we are lucky to go on a cheap camping holiday and the children’s activities are limited to a few each due to a lack of affordability.

AnotherEmma · 06/12/2019 23:44

I am so glad that I have siblings and didn't go to private school.

Never in a million years would I sacrifice my siblings for private school and extra activities.

(I actually did go to private school briefly on an assisted place and scholarship, and I hated it. I realise NAPSALT but I don't think I would have liked any others either.)

RedWineIsFabulous · 06/12/2019 23:49

Still the two we have

LotteLupin · 06/12/2019 23:53

101

LotteLupin · 06/12/2019 23:53

Ok no like 5?

IaIa3 · 06/12/2019 23:57

I'v just had number 3, I always said 3 or 4 but for some reason at this moment in time I feel like 4 would be pushing our luck (who knows that might change). Money isn't even a factor for me.

Northernlurker · 07/12/2019 00:22

The three I have. It was like dd3 flicked a switch on the way out, never been even slightly broody since her birth 12 years ago.

WwfLeopard · 07/12/2019 00:51

1 every 16 years

Piixxiiee · 07/12/2019 00:59

3 or 4 (we have 2) Dh recently mentioned he would quite have liked 3 but he was so adamant 2 was it- we had them close together no family support and lots of house selling/job changing made it chaos. Now that conversation about 3 sticks at the back of my head. It makes no sense to have a third, there would be a few years age gap, I've just got a new job et etc but I still wonder what if......

Dyra · 07/12/2019 01:13

I'd have 3. I have 4 siblings, and that was too many. DH has just the one sibling, which doesn't seem like enough. 3 children seems... Just right.

As it is, we've got one atm. Money and house space should stretch to having a second. But a third would very much be pushing it. Plus there's the age factor and it taking 3 years to even get the one.

SleepingStandingUp · 07/12/2019 01:20

I always wanted 4 in two little batches of two. As it was we had one and then a 4 yr gap and surprise twins so that's 3. If money wasn't an object would I risk a third pregnancy and multiples again? Probably not at my age. If I'd had two singletons then probably .

Also if I'd met DH earlier and had first babies in my 20's I'd been more likely to go for 4 but I'll be 38 nearly when the twins come, and god knows how long it'll take. E to recover from that experience 😂

Jodie77 · 07/12/2019 07:20

3 because I've got 3
I wouldn't have any more

dirtyrottenscoundrel · 07/12/2019 07:26

Plenty of space & money - 6 definitely.

thunderthighsohwoe · 07/12/2019 07:29

Two, but with a cleaner daily, a laundry service and an online PA to sort life admin.

I work all evening every evening as a teacher and hate having a massive to do list of cleaning/admin at the end of the week.

KizzyWayfarer · 07/12/2019 08:01

No more children, no way, for lots of reasons. I’ve never really felt broody and would hate to go back to sleepless nights and nappies. The two I have are fab, why would I need another? I already feel that with two they have to miss out on some activities compared to a singleton and sometimes I feel guilty they don’t get enough attention. The idea of three makes me stressed just thinking about it. Also, climate change, both in the sense of the world we’re bringing them into and the impacts of another child (sorry OP I know this was supposed to be lighthearted!).

Emmabryant123 · 07/12/2019 11:37

I have one and shes enough for me.
If we had more money It wouldn't make me want more