What do you consider ‘a big family’ these days?

I make no judgement about the size of families, I just think you should be able to afford to feed and clothe your children when you have them. Things may change as time goes on because life is changeable but at the point you make that decision, you should be responsible.
The world also changes very quickly. We used to have large families for a variety of reasons but in days gone by, disease wiped out many children. We might well be heading back to those days with antibiotics becoming increasingly ineffective and pandemics rearing their ugly head.

I regard 2 as the norm, 3 all right, 4 and upwards is a large family. The largest family I have ever personally known was 5 children.

HannahLoisLuke
“Also in a second marriage if both partners already have children then they should agree that they won’t have any more.”
Hannah you can’t expect people in second marriages to agree not to have anymore children if they already have had them with previous partners. Most second time couples would want a child together!

I would say these days 3-4 is a large family. So many people only have 1 now because of the cost/size of housing here.

Numbers of those who choose not to have children - apparently increasing - must partly make up for those who do. One of my siblings (4 of us) and his wife chose not to, and another had just one. The other two of us had 2 each, so a population increase of 1.

My elder sister’s 2 have had 2 each, so no increase in the population, and it looks as if my 2 and their partners will be reproducing just 3 of the 4 of them.

I don’t suppose concern for the planet will be much of an influence on people who have a truly visceral longing for a baby (as some of us do) but those who aren’t really bothered either way, or actively don’t want the expense, huge commitment and general mess and disruption, will find ‘the planet’ a useful reason to give, instead of just saying they don’t want children. Since although it’s a perfectly valid choice, some people still think it’s odd or selfish.

I had 3 and that was my limit! But everyones different. DD 1 has two DD2 has one and DD 3 has three but doesn't plan any more! I have a friend who has 9! 3 are much younger than the other 6

Our neighbours have 5 born in 7 years, their house and car are plenty big enough to accommodate them, they are not on benefits and it’s an absolute joy to see them all playing together, I think everyone should decide for themselves how many children they want

2 is enough in my opinion but on the condition you can care for them and pay for them yourself not the tax payers responsibility. Also I think people should seriously think about the world we are bringing children into nowadays, not only the planet stuff but more to the point will they be able to get jobs and houses etc when they reach that age?

More than 2 is bad for the environment. I consider 3 or more as a large family.

I had 3 the second pregnancy being twins. Love them all dearly but certainly didn’t want any more! Each to their own as long as they can afford them without the rest of us having to contribute through taxes for child support and benefits.

I'm with MOnica on this one. It's not a question of whether the parents can afford them, it's whether the planet can afford them.

I understand that the saintly Cambridges are planning a fourth (or are they already expecting it?). I think it's downright irresponsible of them to be setting such a bad example.

It is personal choice how many children a couple have. Nobody should pass judgement.

In the light of what we know about overpopulation any more than two is being self indulgent. Also in a second marriage if both partners already have children then they should agree that they won’t have any more.
I’m the eldest of eight from a farming family, no benefits and it was hard. My childhood was spent looking after the younger ones and helping on the farm, and no, it wasn’t like OurYorkshire Farm!

Esspee my father thought exactly that, until our third child, a daughter and the first girl in his part of the the family since my grandmother was born. He soon changed his ideas. 2-3 is perfect but I now have ten grandchildren and that is perfect too, especially as I have great relationships with all ten (less so with all my three)

I think more than 3 children is rather too many. Things have changed now. In our grandparents' generation it wasn't very unusual for families to have 8 or even 10 children. That seems absurd now. But back then infant mortality was pretty bad and few families hadn't lost at least one child. My parents both had 5 or 6 siblings.

I have two, one of each, enough for us.

Five GC, DD has three, DS two.

My husband was one of 9, 7 boys and 2 girls, one little boy died in childhood. Far too many, they were what would be classed as ‘poor’, free school meals, hand-me-down clothes and everything else. But all loved, all cared for, none of them ever been in trouble with the law and all had responsible jobs.

I had 2 children and then had a miscarriage. It was a late pregnancy in my 40s. I had begun to get excited, looking in the Mothercare shops etc. But alas it was not to be. However I am happy with the 2 I have who have given me 4 grandchildren. By the way having 2 children is a guarantee that the population will decline as of the 2 children not all will go on to have children themselves.

Anything more than two is excessive in our book, we agreed that just replacing ourselves was adequate.
DH is one of four boys and he said he had a dreadful childhood.
I was one of three girls, piggy in the middle, and would have loved to have been an only child.

I was just thinking exactly that kittylester

Obviously, like old age being 10 years older than ourselves, a big family is any more children than we have!

Ninathenana, two of my Daughters were Coil babies, the youngest one I didn't realise I was pregnant with her until l was 16 weeks, they removed my Coil in theatre, it was lodged low down in my Cervix, but was risky for the baby as it contained Copper, so it was deemed safer to remove it rather than suffer a highly lightly premature birth.
She's 31 years old now, with three daughters of her own!

My first Coil just fell out, resulting in only 53weeks between DD2 and DD3!

Personally I would say over 4. But if a couple wants 20, as long as they pay for them why not. It's swings and roundabouts - my DDs have 1 each, some couples choose not to have any children. I'm sure it will balance out in the end.

Have always said if we were meant to have more than two children we would have more than two hands

Someone said 4 is selfish. How unkind! My daughter had 2 children with her husband, who then became an alcoholic and left her. Now she has another child with her new partner and is expecting a second. So she will eventually have 4 children. They can afford them all. I don't think that's selfish.

Four or more is a big family.

We have three. First a girl and then on her second birthday, a boy. This was also my grandmother’s birthday! OH would have been happy to leave it at two, but using my feminine wiles, I persuaded him to have a third - a boy, with his own birthday!