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

Parenting

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

Flip

Original poster

So is it right that after 3 dc you don't notice another one (or two)?

22 replies

DukeOfYorksBrigade · 19/02/2009 17:09

Currently considering a dc4. Have 3 dc aged 7, 5 and 2. Everyone tells me 4 is a nightmare, special car, big house, can't afford holidays etc. But the way I see is going from 2 to 3 is much harder than 3 to 4. I have 2 hands, 2 knees, we are 2 parents. I can't carry 3 plates to the table at once, so someone is already waitng for their food as it is.

Would anyone agree with me, that once you have 3 you could have 4, 5 or 6?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Original poster

DukeOfYorksBrigade · 19/02/2009 19:52

bump

OP posts:

Thankyouandgoodnight · 19/02/2009 19:59

It depends on your attitude

NorthernLurker · 19/02/2009 20:03

I have three and I definately couldn't imagine easily transitioning to four - which is why we're stopping here! The car and house thing is absolutely true - I know several people with four children and it is rather a lot BUT if you want another child then you want another child and you will cope. Just don't have one thinking you'll barely notice it because I think you will - in all sorts of ways! Good Luck

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting

lou33 · 19/02/2009 20:04

i bloody noticed it every time my family increased

so no i wouldnt agree

charmargot · 19/02/2009 20:06

I'm the 7th of 9 and believe there are diminishing marginal costs of having more kids, but don't think it's really very eco friendly. My Mum could justify it as being an only child her Mum got to have the norm for then of around 9 grandkids. Also being poor we only consumed as much as 3 kids in another family might!
I do agree that once you've got 3 you could have 6, but also agree that you do start not to notice them which is not necessarily a good thing for numbers 4, 5 and 6!

robino · 19/02/2009 20:07

I only have two but my mum had three and was of the same opinion as you - said that (if my dad wasn't being an unfaithful swine at the time) she reckoned she could easily have had another one or two. Described it as being "so in the groove" that she wouldn't really have noticed another (in a good way!)

Original poster

DukeOfYorksBrigade · 20/02/2009 07:34

Thanks for replies.

Obviously I was sort of kidding and didn't really mean I wouldn't notice the child, I was meaning the extra cost, work, etc. We have everything - boys/girls toys, clothes etc. Of course another child brings another new personality into the house which you have to be ready for.

I would imagine the first 2 years would be lots of work again, the baby stage, night wakings etc, but after that I can't imagine it being more crazy in this house than it already is. dc3 is very low-maintenance from a playing point of view - she toddles around after the older 2 which keeps her entertained. Of course there is more fighting potential but we have so much of that already I'm not sure I'd notice a bit more.

The one to one attention things worries me a bit - I find that hard enough with 3.

OP posts:

letswiggle · 20/02/2009 07:42

I think you notice all of them, and it probably gets worse as you have more and more in that you're already so stretched that it becomes really difficult to manage. And it would be that much more complicated if it turned out to be twins, or SN or something that required double the attention of one average child. One of my friends decided to have number 4 and it turned out to be 4 and 5. But then another friend had twins third time round and had number 5 anyway!

Belgrano · 20/02/2009 15:17

Ooh Duke of Yorks, I only have one and probably don't have the energy(!) for 4 but I wanted to add that my friends who are one of 4 were always a source of wonder and slight envy to the rest of us boring 2 or 3 child families. They seem a bit more exotic and much more exciting precisely beacuse its more unusual and makes them more self contained - ie. there's fun and lots of personalities wherever they go and they don't need anyone else. I was a 3rd but after a HUGE gap so practically an only and was always more than a bit jealous of big-familied friends.
Yes its not environmentally friendly but you could make a conscious effort to offset that by eg. educating all 4 in environmental awareness so you end up with 4 ambassadors which is surely better for the environment than 3 indiffernt consumers.
I say if you're up for it then go for it and b*gger the car worries - you'll manage!

letswiggle · 21/02/2009 10:00

I don't think the car's an issue unless you have more than five children . Bedrooms surely are more of a problem - sharing or not sharing a bedroom is a big difference for a teenager.

subtlemouse · 21/02/2009 10:08

But see this... www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/20/family-triplets

lockets · 21/02/2009 10:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

hedgepig · 21/02/2009 13:50

my bf has 4 with a similar age gaps to hor yor would be if you have 4 (I only have 2) and looking at her family from the outside I would say the youngest got less 1 to 1 attention when they were small but now the older ones are all at school he has more 1 to 1 attention from his mum. I think what I'm trying to say is that as the DCs get older their needs etc will change so nothing is fixed. They are a lovely family great kids etc.

n5rje · 21/02/2009 13:58

I haven't found going from 3 to 4 to be much trouble but my older 3 are at primary school which makes a big difference during the day and they are able to get themselves dressed and fed when necesary.

We are lucky to have enough bedrooms and I already had a people carrier so we didn't need to buy a new car so in terms of cost I haven't really noticed much extra. I bfed until weaning at 6 months so the only additional cost was for nappies as I already had enough clothes etc.

I certainly would have considered 5 but I was 40+ when I had DS4 who's now 12mths so its a bit late for me but good luck with whatever you decide.

babyphat · 21/02/2009 14:16

i am one of 5 and loved it! And i can honestly say there was no jealousy or rivalry with new arrivals, and as we got older we entertained each other and were fairly independent. my mum was very eco-conscious and we were pretty green, we shared and reused stuff, cloth nappies etc. she did have to do 5 loads of laundry every single day though

n5rje · 21/02/2009 19:07

babyphat - I'm glad to hear you loved being part of a big family, I hope my DCs will do to. I agree about the jealousy/rivalry, I can honestly say that I've never had any kind of either but then again maybe I'm just too busy to notice

DanJARMouse · 21/02/2009 19:14

I think it is such a personal decision, and whether you personally feel you could cope.

I have 3, all under 5yrs old, and we have stopped. No chance of any more here. However much I adore all 3 of them individually, together they just dont mix the way I thought they would.

Im very much struggling with the 3 I have now that a 4th for me would send me over the edge. I think I now know why everyone I ever knew growing up only ever had 2 children.

My transition to 3 was not easy, so for me it would be a no go, but if you feel in yourself you could cope with another one, then who are we to say not to!

letswiggle · 22/02/2009 12:58

I can understand that having number 4 when the other 3 are already a bit older would be easier - nothing like the strain of 3 under 5. In fact, I was thinking of maybe doing that.

n5rje · 22/02/2009 14:39

Letswiggle - my first 3 were in 3.5 years and I can tell you that having a 4th later on is way easier, looking back now I can't believe I had 3 at home for a year before DS1 went to school but you do what you have to do and I don't remember it being too bad at the time I think there must just have been stuff I didn't do (housework I think)

CarGirl · 22/02/2009 14:59

I have 4. I had a 5.5 year gap and then 3 in 3 years & 6 weeks ( what on earth was I thinking!) The 4th didn't make any difference tbh she just fitted in and joined in with the others pretty much from 18 months old - the age she became mobile.

Having a 5th now would make a difference because the youngest is off to school in September and life is def less hard work - no nappies, faddy eaters etc etc. If I were planning on having a 5th I would have done it sooner rather than later. Of course my eldest was fairly independent when I had my 2nd and is much more like an only child tbh

lockets · 22/02/2009 15:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster

DukeOfYorksBrigade · 23/02/2009 21:12

Internet been down for a few days so didn't realise there were more replies.

Seems to be mostly positive experience of having 4! I don't know anyone who had a negative experience of a growing up in a large family actually.

If I do it I will do it soon. I would like them to all grow up together. But like someone said, you never know how they are going to gel together. It seems to go in phases with us. At the moment dd1 seems a bit separate, wants her own room and feels older and superior to the others. ds1 and dd2 play and fight together a lot and also share a room, but mainly because ds1 won't sleep alone! I wonder if he'll still want her there when he's 14?!

OP posts:

Flip