Four is the new three

There’s something in the air. In the more expensive postcodesof Britain, in the upper-earning, over-achieving echelons of life in general, there is a new must-have status symbol. Not a car, not a certain type of house, not a super-sleek yacht, but something much more fundamental — and so much more significant: a child.

Specifically, a fourth child. Leading the pack are some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet: the Blairs, the Gores, the Jaggers, the Pitt-Jolies. Ségolène Royal has four children, as does Ruth Kelly. Roman Abramovich, not to be outdone by mere world leaders and superstars, has five. Nicola Horlick, that veteran over-achiever, must have about 27 by now (actually it’s five, but you know what I mean).

Elsewhere, among the ever-increasing ranks of the anonymous super-rich — the fund managers and private equity whizzes — four children has now become almost a minimum requirement. Why? Wouldn’t you have thought that, with all that wheeler-dealing and high-powered posturing, life would be exhausting enough. Why compound things by adding to the never-ending pile of washing and 5am wake-up calls?

Because having four children without incurring so much as a blip in your lifestyle is the ultimate proof of success. The pile of washing is irrelevant: someone else is doing it; there is any number of highly-trained nannies to do the early shift on a Saturday morning. Tony Blair may have been up to his ears in foreign policy when baby Leo came along, but it was a point of principle that he still found time to do the odd night feed. That’s the kind of tough stuff a world leader is made of.

What might defeat ordinary mortals is just so much grist to the alpha daddy’s (or alpha mummy’s) mill. For men, the message is quick and effective: there’s plenty of lead in my pencil. For working women it reinforces just how super they really are: four children, a size ten and still got balls in the boardroom. For non-working mothers it’s a similar thing: such is their allure that they’ve married an alpha capable of supporting not just her in suitable style, but a nest of embryonic alphas too.

Having four children means that you need a house the size of Texas; it means a convoy on the school run; an army of highly trained staff; multiple school fees. It’s the Darwinian expression of a person’s physical, mental and social superiority.

By comparison, people like myself, for whom two is already plenty hard work, both in terms of holding down a job and generally retaining some, however small, vestige of sanity, are losers.

A friend, whose wife has vetoed having even a third child, let alone a fourth, recently found himself accused of mediocrity (by a father-of-four colleague, naturally).

Mediocrity? What are these people on? And can I have some?

Comments

[CAROLINE]

I have four boys and am pregnant with number five,I do not consider myself to be irresponsible.If we can feed and clothe our kids then what buisness is it of anyone elses.
We have a lively happy house and my boys are like best friends and instead of growing up with the latest x-box or gadgets they may not get they will always have love and plenty of people to turn to when they need it.It is hard work but my husband and I have always worked together and they have great grandparents.I would rather have my kids than a fancy house,car ,high powered job any day of the week.

[L]

Not sure I quite fit your informal poll - have just had my fourth child, all grim sick complicated pregnancies, all c-sections. But, much as toddlers drive me insane, I adore my babies, and I have lots of help from my husband. Would I have had a fifth if the doctors hadn't thought it such a lousy idea? Probably not, but the temptation would always had been there.

[MUMOFTWO]

I agree with the previous poster; my not very easy pregnancies and the amount of support and help I needed during them is putting me off having a third just on a practical level, although I quite enjoy the giving birth and breastfeeding bit. A friend of a friend has just had her sixth boy, she has also had three miscarriages and so been pregnant nine times. They are not rich at all, all squash in a terraced house and her home is run like a military operation in terms of everything being organised and labelled. She has easy pregnancies, never really notices she is pregnant (so she says) and pops them out pretty easily- plus they love kids...It's not just the preserve of the rich, but I think you do have to love being pregnant (or at least not care) to do it more than a couple of times.

[Lazy Mummy]

Supermother - You're right there about mothers who enjoy pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding tending to have larger families. Generally, women who had a difficult pregnancy or labour/delivery will have fewer children, and bigger spacing between them (c-section is a strong factor in this too). There's data on this somewhere (of course) and (fwiw) the informal poll of my friends, colleagues & acquaintances bears supports it.

[Junilou]

So if you have none it's wrong, if you have one it's selfish, if you have two it's mediocre, if you have three the one in the middle is screwed, and if you have four it's because you are ultra competitive.
Great. Good to know we're not being judgmental here. A friend forwarded this article to be, being as I am
36 weeks pregnant with number 4. I feel so much better for reading it.

[j]

ps this is not an anti working mother rant, I work full time myself.

[J]

I'm with Eve on this one. I have three, two disabled. Four standard issue kids would be a piece of cake. Actually, so would twelve.

What an offensive, selfindulgent thread. Just be very grateful all your kids are OK, and if you want to know what hard work and sacrifice look like, how about you volunteer at your local hospice/school for severely disabled kids one day. Then imagine doing it every day for the rest of your life.

[supermother]

Sunako, you don't blow it out. It's one of the principal purposes it's made for and it expands. In fact arguably it's only when you're on to baby 2 or 3 that it comes into its won and you feel its power and births tend to get easier. For a lot of women giving is birth is one of the most significant and remarkable experiences of their life. In fact may be that's another line of thought - that those of us who like being pregnant, giving birth, breastfeeding (as I always did) have bigger families.

[Kim]

I can't pretend to understand Sunako's comment, but I would like to point out that babies don't weigh 20lb when they're born. The usual is more like 7lb.

[Laura]

I know it's a myth that we, women and mothers or women who are not mothers, 'stick together'. But since when has parenting become such a competitive sport?

I really don't care what other people do and I also don't care what they say about my life.

Each to their own.

[Sunako]

I find it perplexing why anyone would want to blow out their vagina by pushing a 20pound object out of it. Although they cloak it in love of children, love of life, love of tradition and other hoo-ha, the masochism in these women that makes them want to undergo this self-mortification is really appalling. To think that after they undergo this experience, they'd want to repeat it 3 more times is just well, plain idiotic.

I suppose people will say that it's their instinct calling and them answering. But hey, we have lots of instincts, many of them aren't good. Just as I have an instinct to thwack these idiots upside their heads, I restrain myself. I wish these idiots would restrain themselves and stop overpopulating the earth already.

[Catherine]

I just loved Vicky's post!
I have 3 children under 7 - I'm going to keep quiet about whether I work full-time/part-time/ at all - for fear of reprisals - you Alpha Mummies (with some exceptions) are a judgmental lot!
The real difficulty I notice is giving them each individual time, that can only get harder with 4!

[GoodEnough Mum]

Does it really matter how many children other people have? Its their business and if we continue to judge ourselves on what others do, its a one-way ticket to unhappiness. We have three children - one singleton and twins. We would probably only have had two children, but three came along as a huge surprise. It changed our lives completely: work was out of the question - even with both of us in highly paid jobs, childcare was ridiculously expensive and we didn't want our children brought up by relative strangers. So, after making difficult decisions, we changed our lives and ten years on, have a happy lively (and noisy)house - three children two dogs and enough money to give our children a secure standard of living. However many children you have, make sure that they are the most important thing in your life - you only have them for such a short time.

[Jennifer]

Is this such a 'new' phenomenon? 32 years ago when I had my first child - at 32 - I hadn't thought of how many children I wanted but was just pleased to have had at least one being what was considered to be an elderly first time mother. I went on to have 3 more children in approx 2 year intervals and out of choice - and on the estate of 40 houses where we live 30 miles outside London there were 5 other families who had 4 children and quite a few more in the wider area. However, those mothers all stayed home and muddled through, or coped extremely well or whatever with their broods, and I eventually returned to work at 53 and worked for another 10 years. It takes two to tango and no child, particularly where the potential parents are intelligent etc etc, needs to be a 'mistake' so surely these decisions must have been discussed/thought through? I would't have missed the experience for anything and in fact it was a help when I returned to work in that the interviewer thought I wouldn't be easily fazed and I got the job!

[Alex]

I have four children, same ages as Andrea Hey. It really is not that bad - the big difference between us is that we decided that if we had a fourth, much as
I prefer to do everything myself, I would have to have help. We had an au pair plus for the first two years after having our fourth. I ran the children with
military precision. Luckily I got a superb au pair. She did the older three children every morning, dressing, teeth, breakfast, etc and I did the baby. Once the baby
had had its first feed, I would swap- hand over baby and drive older ones to school. A big rule - NO PACKED LUNCHES. They can have school meals - and if
they don't like them, tough. At 1.30PM every day, Monday to Friday, the au pair would ask "What for supper" in her thick Czech accent. Her efficiency could be
quite irritating but it did work well. She would prepare the evening meal which would go on the table as the older children returned from school at 5PM.

When the youngest was two, I got rid of au pairs. It was hard work but I organised a child minder for number four, two days a week. I use a babysitting agency that
is absolutely brilliant. I send an e-mail with my requirements and they organise the sitter. No endless phone calls to students who can't decide if they are in or out on a particular night. The babysitters from the agency can drive too so no collecting and returning.

I have always worked part time from home, and I admit since the au pair leaving I have always had a cleaner who also does the ironing. I still do the washing (hanging it up, folding the massive piles and working out whose knickers and socks belong to who takes ages), sewing, all house admin. So in short four is fine, but you do need some help.
Without help, you can survive but you take out your exhaustion, boredom with the same jobs and stresses on your husband and children. With help, you can enjoy your
children and be there to listen to all their problems calmly. You have someone to entertain the baby while you help the older ones with Latin verbs, or spellings or listen to piano practice. You can't let the older ones be held back by the baby - we have taken a holiday nanny on a skiing holiday with us and we have also tried one of those family skiing holidays. The nanny worked best as we found the family skiing holiday mostly had only very young children in the hotel. With the nanny, we could tailor the holiday more to suit the older children. She would bring no. 4 up the mountain to meet us for lunch. The extra help has cost us a lot but is essential for your sanity.

My fourth goes to school in September and, much as I adore him (my first and only boy), I can't wait!! I have started going to exercise classes. I have been out and bought a few nice clothes. I am going to play golf once a week from September. I am getting my life back. Hooray.

[Catherine Munro]

This sort of article is why I stopped reading the Daily Telegraph - vacuous and self serving. Two children is more than enough - three at a push.

[Impressionist]

I have one child but hope to have two or three more. I grew up in a family of four and thought our family was an average size- especially considering my mum was one of nine girls! I suppose without three siblings we might have had more space at home, more material possessions, and fancier holidays. But, Christmas would have been quiet and boring, I wouldn't have three younger siblings to play with, and my little girl wouldn't have two uncles and an auntie who love her to bits. What's more important- a huge house and a fancy car or the love of your (big)family? And, at the end of the day, the big house and the car won't be there for you when you're old and grey.

[Kirsten]

Nearly Mummy: Don't give up on the idea of a large family. I had my first baby at age 33, and now have just had my fifth and am about to turn 41. Yes, they're all close together, and it's exhausting work. But I LOVE the chaos and noise and mayhem. The kids keep asking when number 6 is coming, but I think we're going to get a puppy instead. There are limits...

[Kirsten]

Nearly Mummy: Don't give up on the idea of a large family. I had my first baby at age 33, and now have just had my fifth and am about to turn 41. Yes, they're all close together, and it's exhausting work. But I LOVE the chaos and noise and mayhem. The kids keep asking when number 6 is coming, but I think we're going to get a puppy instead. There are limits...

[NearlyMummy]

This is a really interesting topic of conversation. I'm one of two and always wanted three or four of my own. Given that I am expecting my first baby in about 10 weeks at the age of 34 I've now had to let go of that idea. I hope I have time to have a second child but I'm not counting on it. The fact is that I chose not to have children in my twenties and that does rather put paid to the large family ideal. I'm not saying this to court sympathy - far from it these were my choices, but to raise the issue that with people tending to leave it later large families will become increasingly unusual.

[Diana Wolfin]

As the mother of four adult children (34,32,29,27) - two girls, two boys, - I recall talking to my own mother's generation when I only had two children. We spoke about their lives and regrets and every single one told me that she wished she had had another child, that she had thought about it seriously at the time, but for (mostly) selfish reasons, did not take the plunge. I decided to be brave and we had all four before I was 30. It was really hard but now they are the most wonderful family, one of whom already has four of her own! Two of our children are married to partners from four-children families and gatherings of the clan are totally memorable. I often think how lucky they are to have such a strong sense of family and of being grounded in who they are and where they come from. The only down side is that my hair is completely white (and has been for about 20 years!)- I blame them totally!

[Debra]

Having children as the ultimate yummy mummy status symbol is short sighted to say the least unless you are one of these high powered super women who drop their babies en route to a meeting leaving Nanny to pick up the pieces. For normal mortals, satisfying the urge to let your ovaries have one final fling can be harder than you think. I had two children in my twenties,2 in my thirties and although it was incredibly hard work I did love having a big family and it worked well, two older ones, two younger ones. Like the article I do remember the horror of dragging all four children to every appointmnet and activity , sick or well, but there were also many times when I could sit back and relax because they all had someone to play with without resorting to endless outings and playdates.
So far so good. In my forties, I found number five on its way, totally unplanned and unexpected and although he is gorgeous life is certainly different. My planned career revival was back on hold and the prospect of revivng it in my fifties less likely. It is tiring. I am reasonably fit and young for my age but the endless round of parties, theme parks and sweaty sticky swimming pool changing rooms can lose the attraction they held twenty years ago. Worst of all is the school run when I am now faced with a new generation of super keen yummy mummies, most of whom seem so well groomed and dynamic in comparison to my generation. Yes I've made some lovely new friends but the age diffrence is there and to be honest I don't give a stuff what reading scheme my son is on.. i just can't read another round of Biff and Chip.
Sorry if I'm negative. Yes there are huge compensations and sometimes it's lovely to be able to do all the baby stuff again but as any prospective parent should always tell themselves...you don't give birth to a baby you give birth to a stroppy adolescent and when you are in your fifties that may just have you reaching for the sanatogen

[EX5 4LA]

The most eco friendly things anyone can do is not over-reproduce themselves. Why bother recycling, driving green cars etc if you then fuel overpopulation? All our childen will need food/houses/energy etc. Maximum two children is the only reasonable choice. Having four children is like bulldozing a rainforest.

[Agathoise]

Perhaps people have children because they love them and are open to the gift of life, rather than for the shallow reasons mentioned (Second home or posh handbag as status symbol ... perhaps. Children -- surely not!).

In the circles I move in (the breadth of South-East London -- SE22 to SE9; very mixed in terms of class, education, fiscal means & religion/none) a family of four is normal or even small (I'm a lightweight with only three!) I have yet to meet any family who increased their numbers for reasons of status, and very few could be considered wealthy. What's wrong with children sharing rooms/toys/clothes? Children don't "cost" a fortune: parental care and attention are worth far more than designer clothes and expensive toys & gadgets.

One of my best friends is the second of ten children. She grew up without a lot of money, but with a lot of love. She feels that she -- and her children by way of aunties, uncles and cousins -- still benefits from being one of such a large family, and her siblings agree.

Family size is a deeply personal matter. Nobody knows whether a mother of one chose to stop at that number or reconciled herself to having an only child after repeated miscarriages. Likewise, who has right to criticise the family who have joyfully welcomed their Nth child into the world?

[Joanna]

There's something pretty depressing about the idea of children as status symbol - although there's always been that suggestion of male virility about large families. Four isn't really that large - I should say (as a mother of four) that it's the largest you can go and still call it a small family. Each child can hold a parent's hand, you don't need a really weird car, you don't need a special house (unless you are very precious about everyone having their own room).

Here, we have some of the advantages mentioned in the article, but I never had much help - a bit of cleaning, an occasional au pair. So my children (2 girls, 2 boys, now 21, 19, 17, 15) have always had to muck in. The house is filled with laughter, and our young have a close bond with each other.

Four has to be better than three - there's always someone to play with, and no-one's ever left out. I speak as the middle of three, older brother younger sister, I would NEVER do that to a child.

Joanna
joannasfood.blogspot.com

[Wendy V]

I don't agree with the assumption that four children equates to staff, school fees or massive houses and is some kind of status symbol. It certainly wasn't for our parents' generation, and I know plenty of parents of modest means who - like me - have four children, simply because they love being parents, and love family life.

[vicky]

Just as my fourth child started school I found myself pregnant again, a huge shock as we had decided we had our ideal family with three sons and lastly a daughter. When our fourth son was born his siblings were aged 6, 8, 10 and 11. The first four had been ideal babies, slept through the night by 3 months, contented and easy to deal with. No. 5 was to break the mould! He was a terrible sleeper and did not sleep through the night until he was 3. He woke about 4-5 times a night, and on the odd night he did not wake up, I would wake up with a start convinced he must be dead and rush to his room only to wake him up to check. Exhaustion gradually led to depression which lasted for about a
year. He crawled at 6 months, walked at 9 months and was a child constantly on the go, destroying everything in his wake! At age 7 he was diagnosed with ADHD which explained everything.
Having said all that, I would not change anything. He is now 15 and the most wonderful child, still full of energy and fun, but now thankfully channelled in the right direction. His older siblings love him to bits and he is the envy of his friends when he gets to stay in their London flats, fly to stay with the one that lives overseas, and generally lead the life of a much older person. He has never curtailed our family life - he has just come along and joined in with everything. If there was any activity he could not take part in, there were enough of us for someone to take care of him. He is a breath of fresh air and through school I now have a bunch of friends 10 years younger than me which is very refreshing. Of course life is chaotic, but it is fun chaotic (we also have four dogs, a cat, horses). Most of our children say they want large families themselves.
My advice to anyone wavering as to whether to have another child is go for it. I have many friends, now post menopause, who envy me my clan and wish they had taken the plunge to have another child. As parents you easily expand to include one more child and so what if you cannot afford the posh dinners or holiday home. The fun you can have at home with your large brood is far more important. We have wonderful weekends when they all converge with their girlfiends/boyfriend and I just could not begin to imagine life without any of them.

[L]

Just had my fourth, and love the feeling that we are now all here - the party can begin! No alpha mummies and daddies here, and no school fees, expensive holidays or even separate bedrooms either. But always someone to talk to or play with, always someone to smile at the baby, always something happening. I was one of two, and always felt like the fun was happening somewhere other than our quiet well-behaved home. My observation of large families is that their homes are always welcoming because, hey, what difference does a couple more make when there are so many already?

As long as my kids are fed, clothed and hugged each day, the rest is a bonus. Set yourself some low standards, and enjoy raising a dinner party's worth of excellent company!

[saraabifran]

Have 3 lovely children. Could not imagine having 4. On a superficial level this is because of socks - matching socks becomes impossible.
Less superficial - time for 3 is not easy. Also love it when down to 2. Wouldn't be without any of them but the third has been very expensive - holidays;hotel rooms etc

[helen]

I am the youngest of five. My mother was an only child who didn't much like her mother and I swear that having so many children was a way of getting back at her own mother. I hated being the youngest of such a big family - having to wait, wait, wait all your life to go to the same places, watch the same programmes, be let in on jokes etc. You are not your own person; you are one of a tribe and seen always in that context. My mother once admitted she loved the feeling of walking into a restaurant with the five of us and seeing everybody's head turn. Having a lot of children is all about your own ego - it certainly is NOT about giving your children the happiest start.

[bushra]

i grew up as one of ten (ten!) in a not-so-super rich family. i'm having my first child in august, and don't expect to have more than two, thanks!

[supermother]

Lawyers do it best of course, male and female.

From http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=115643&d=11&h=24&f=23

"Ashurst partner Ed Sparrow, Clifford Chance partner Elizabeth Knox and banking head Mark Campbell top the table, each with seven children. Knox, however, earns bonus points for having given birth to hers. One City source commented: "Respect."

There must be something in the water at Slaughters. A further three partners make it to the table, with Nigel Boardman, Eddie Codrington and Malcolm Nicholson all tallying six tots. It must be the purity of the all-equity partnership."

[supermother]

Large families are fun. There is a cohort of successful full time city mothers and fathers who have large families. It's a known trend and one of the nicest most giving things you can do with your time and money. Better than buying a yacht or a second or third home. It makes family life more fun too and the siblings love it. Our five get so much out of each other even though the age range is wide. Five sets of school fees are not fun to pay whatever your income level but alpha mummies and daddies manage. One of the nicest results of being successful in a career is the ability to have the children you want without worrying too much about the cost. Also successful full time working mothers who in effect often pay for the children anyway have more power and control because of their income and the slant of power in their relationship assuming they have chosen to have a child with a man at all, so again they can determine the family size they choose. Lucky are those who are alpha women.

[Eve]

Ten years ago, when my youngest(of three) was about to start school, I could not resist having one more baby and putting my own career on hold for just a few more years. The beautiful little boy we had was diagnosed with autism aged 3. We all adore him and he is doing well but at this time, when his older siblings are excitedly planning future careers, uni courses etc. we realise he will probably never be able to live independently. I want to be around for him as much as possible and have never returned to my original career.

Anyone who is thinking of one more child - life will never be the same again,of course, but it might change more than you could imagine.

[Jane]

In this dangerously overpopulated world, it's absolutely irresponsible to have more than two children per couple - one to replace each of them when the parents die.

[amanda]

I don't agree with the fact that you have to e super rich etc etc to have 4 children, me and my husband have a 13, 11 and 8 month old and we are now trying for number 4! My husband has an average paid job but NOT enough to support us and I go out to work part time. We live in a 3 bed terraced and we will have enough space for all of our children. We want a large--ish family and if money was no object or space we would have more! I think it is a personal decision and you don't have to be super rich or have an army of nannies, you can do it yourself by working together and supporting each other!