"16 Kids and Counting" - how do they afford it?

daska

That's really sad. But I would write it all down anyway, it's the people who come after them who would probably really appreciate understanding how things were for you.

notanewuser

daska wrote: »

I suspect that's quite a modern viewpoint. Take it back 100+ years and large families were quite normal. My great great grandparents (1885 - 92) were all from families of 13+ children (I know my paternal ggd was the youngest of 16 but can't remember the others off the top of my head). Whereas my grandparents (1901-7) were from families of 1, 2 and 8 (no idea about my maternal grandad but suspect he was an only child). My dad had one sibling and my mother was a singleton

But they weren't all expected to live into adulthood, nor was there a welfare state to pay for them!!!

Wasn't unusual for Dad to be working 20 hours a day 7 days a week to feed and clothe his children. Nowadays expecting them to work more than 24 hours a week gets sighs and whining about their rights to spend time with their children.

daska

notanewuser wrote: »

But they weren't all expected to live into adulthood, nor was there a welfare state to pay for them!!!

Wasn't unusual for Dad to be working 20 hours a day 7 days a week to feed and clothe his children. Nowadays expecting them to work more than 24 hours a week gets sighs and whining about their rights to spend time with their children.

Yes, and like some members of my family they ended up in the workhouse because there was no other option when things fell apart. I wasn't actually arguing that either was better, just that values are different and there are pros and cons to being one of many. My ggd told wonderful stories of the adventures he had with his siblings - never short of a friend to play with (though he hated his oldest sister with a vengeance, a right tartar she was by all accounts).

But you know what's strange, despite all the rants in the press and on here, I don't personally know one person who doesn't want to work. The ones who don't have full time permanent work pick up any part time or temporary job they can find or are disabled or responsible for caring for a disabled family member. And I live in an area which has nearly the highest level of unemployment and poverty in the UK.

gingin_2

I just watched last night's episode. I felt both mums were very emotionally needy, especially the lady with all the girls. I can't think of anything more selfish than discouraging your children from going out and living their own lives. The mother announced to the number of times that she had told her youngest kids that they were never allowed to leave home, a joke masked as something else entirely.

I felt sorry for the pregnant girlfriend of the son, I admire her strength when she didn't lamp the MIL for telling the son that she'd keep his room the way it is for when he comes back ( or something like that).

The mother with 12/13 children who wanted to go and live on the farm didn't seem right. She doesn't like answering the phone, doesn't like leaving the house, home schools all of her kids, does her shopping on the internet, doesn't get on with family.

minimoneysaver

That was my observation too GinGin

Mrs_Optimist

So glad I found this thread! My own View is that we stopped after child no 2 as we couldnt afford to give any more time or financially support another child after that. We love children but knew that after child no 2 there was a real risk that we could decide in a moment of madness to have child no 3 so DH had a vasectomy to take the option away from us. I love my children to bits and already at the ages of 14 and 11 my 14 year old would like to live in London when she is older and my 11 year old has expressed an interest in living in America. I would be gutted if they did go but I would fully respect their choices to go if they wanted to and would never try the emotional blackmail that the mum with the daughters and one son did last night. I would miss them but feel that my job as a mum is for them to be able to grow up and feel confident enough to make their own choices in life and I would support them and alway be there for them. I am there for them, I do not expect them to be there to fill any emotional void in my life.

pigpen

daska wrote: »

I suspect that's quite a modern viewpoint. Take it back 100+ years and large families were quite normal. My great great grandparents (1885 - 92) were all from families of 13+ children (I know my paternal ggd was the youngest of 16 but can't remember the others off the top of my head). Whereas my grandparents (1901-7) were from families of 1, 2 and 8 (no idea about my maternal grandad but suspect he was an only child). My dad had one sibling and my mother was a singleton

Hardly a fair comparison given contraception was not available until the 1960's and abortion was illegal.

I'd be really happy for my children if they wanted to live elsewhere, I would be proud I had brought them up with enough confidence to branch out on their own in a place foreign to them

daska

pigpen wrote: »

Hardly a fair comparison given contraception was not available until the 1960's and abortion was illegal.

I'd be really happy for my children if they wanted to live elsewhere, I would be proud I had brought them up with enough confidence to branch out on their own in a place foreign to them

Yes you're right, the availability of contraception and terminations has no doubt contributed hugely to changing views about how big a family ought to be. And I'm sure that better and free healthcare with the resultant reduction in infant mortality rates has also contributed to a change in general expectations of family size. But my grandparents, and my mum for that matter, had very different views to mine about how much attention a child needs and should have. And I suspect that a large part of this change in attitude is because most families are so much smaller - for most parents there is more time and energy available to lavish on children so that has become the norm and therefore the expectation.

Yes and the Lewis mum is obviously overly emotionally dependent on her children.

Treevo

fireyfirenze wrote: »

pretty sure it was his because on one shot he was driving it away and you could see still their range rover parked on the drive. at least I think so! I was half asleep

That was a silver minibus on the driveway.

The Range Rover was/is the mother's car. It was being used by the son to move his stuff out.

Molly41

Posh cars yet the two youngest had to share a bedroom with their parents and were 8/9 years old. They had shared since they were babes. The cost of those posh cars would have built a loft conversion or extension so each child had more personal space. We made that our priority when our kids needed more space and I drove a banger for 10 years and paid off a home loan. Priorities are different but the woman with girls is all show IMHO.