A grandma has given birth to triplets !!

Wizzy I think you will find, if you look carefully at the posts, that there is a feeling that having even one baby at 55 is a bit shortsighted. Especially as this lady has a family already. Frankly the idea of becoming a mother at that age with broken nights, toddler tantrums and energetic little ones to chase after appalls me. Many of us look after GCs and find it much more exhausting than when we were in our 20s, 30s and 40s.

Good luck to them. I'm sure they will be wonderful parents but at what cost to themselves physically?

I've just reread the article and noticed that the mother intends to return to her well paid job to pay off the loan, so actually other (probably younger people) will be looking after the triplets for her. ?

So.... erm.....no problem then? But why? Anyone?

Just to show she can? Prove she's still "young"?
That's what I still wonder about our neighbour.

But Tricia she had to have eggs provided by a donor so she actually couldn't!

I'm 55 but still having monthly periods :-( so could still in theory get pregnant...what a horrible thought

Very good point wizzy it is the fact that these were triplets that made headlines. One late baby would have passed unreported.

Well makes a change from Grandmothers looking after toddlers if she passes the buck to the Crèche /Nanny

I don't agree with couples having children late in life and by that I probably mean over 40. When I read of such stories its always focused on the mother/father and how they feel fit enough to look after the children and everything will be fine. I think it is very a very selfish view of things and the child itself is very rarely thought about.

As an only child of older parents (mother 40 and father 45) myself I know what is can be like and what effect it can have, the main points being:
- people/children thinking your mum is your grandma, especially at school gates
- older less fit parents not able to keep up the same
- being a generation out in the family, your cousins being what would normally be your parents age and second cousins being your age
- having to deal with parents ill health/deaths when your children are very young
- not ever having that special relationship with grandparents of your own
- your children missing out on really knowing your parents
- not having your own parents to talk to as you mature and able to have an adult relationship with them
- money to look after children is less of an issue, a child wants the love and care from its own parents

The above points are just the main ones, I'm sure there are many more if I thought more about it.

I realise that surprise babies happen in later life and that parents with older children sometimes have little surprises but for much older couples/mothers to plan babies in my eyes is selfish.

Sorry for the rant, but it is close to my heart and I loved my mum and dad very much and they have been passed for nearly 20 years now.

Very selfish I think but it's her life

I think it's very selfish but it's her life

Well said Mancunian

A colleague of mine found herself pregnant at 49 when her then youngest child was 10. It was a surprise.

Good luck to them all, I say. There are that many born to parents who don't care about them or abuse them that these babies sound like they are going to be well loved, if looked after by a nanny, but then lots of children are these days. She must think she is up to it all and really she shouldn't be answerable to anyone but her and her partner and her own family.

Nobody has a baby for the baby's sake. Having a child is always a "selfish" action, whether it is just because you have that overwhelming urge to give birth, hold and raise your own child, sharing that, perhaps, with the man you love and, possibly live with (or you need to supply the heir to the throne or a title). It's a pretty atavistic thing, so criticising this woman as selfish is fairly silly.