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

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.

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)

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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 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.

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 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.

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.

My mum was one of 8, my dad one of 4.
My daughters father was one of 9 (Irish Catholic).
I had one, all I wanted.
Environmentally more than two or 3 is damaging imo.
The family on TV with 20+ are ridiculous! They may not claim benefits but they surely cannot honestly say each child gets everything they need from their parents?
I find it distasteful she was pregnant by him at 13/14 tbh.
I also find it odd she is still choosing to have more at the same time as her daughter/s..... .

I am one of three as is my husband so three seemed the ideal number for our own family, which is what we had. They are all now in their twenties and quite a few of our friends also had three children but far more had two. Two seems to be the norm these days - very few people seem to have three or more.

Two or three if there’s a multiple birth. The planet can’t take any more over population. I went to catholic schools in the 50s and 60s and even then families had rarely more than 3 children, apart from the odd exception.

With the worldwide overpopulation and we just need to look at the population density in the UK two children (unless a multiple arrives for the second birth) is enough. I am always amazed at how folk moan about needing larger houses and not either being able to afford to buy or rent; can't afford child care yet
keep on having more children. On the Planet and sustainability, what has happened with the nappy landfill issue, never seems to be included in media items now.

I like to see big families personally, maybe that is because I was glad to have come from one.

I’m sure I read somewhere that the population was in danger of declining in the future because of low birth rates.

Grandmajet ~ a mirror image of my family except we had four in four years! No twins.... tried all available contraception but in the end, he had the snip! We'd have been happy with 6 but gave in to peer pressure. Not selfish or indulgent, we could afford them financially and emotionally and they were never palmed off on friends or relatives. We went out together once a year and loved it.... if it's right for you at the time, then the size of your family is nobody's business but your own.....

I would never consider three children a big family. It is still quite normal to have three children.

Nor can I agree that having children is self-indulgent - we need young people, otherwise we will become a nation of old and eventually dead people.

Five or six children could be considered large, I suppose, but there again many famiies do have that number due to divorce and remarriage.

Have as many children as you can comfortably afford. They will become tax payers.

If it’s second marriage ie a blended family it may be larger than parents and one or two children.