Belfast Telegraph

UK Website Of The Year

Home Life Features

If women were honest, how many would admit they'd like more kids?

The financial cut-off point for a lot of mothers these days is two children. Oh to be Kate, for whom money is not a barrier. We asked mum-of-two Carol Hunt to reflect on giving it one more roll of the dice

Published 06/05/2015

All smiles: the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the newborn Princess of Cambridge as they leave St Mary’s Hospital in London
All smiles: the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the newborn Princess of Cambridge as they leave St Mary’s Hospital in London
New arrival: Charlotte Elizabeth Diana
Daddy’s boy: the Duke of Cambridge with son George

Who'd be a princess these days? What was, in days of old, a pretty cushy number, has now been turned, thanks to the magic of celebrity, into a 24/7 public relations job with no time off for good behaviour.

Most of us - those who will admit it and many who won't dare - have spent the past week keeping abreast of the Duchess of Cambridge's maternity schedule.

Yes, of course, we should all have far more interesting things to do, like walk the dog, or clean the kitchen, but most of us are still captivated by the spell of royalty. And, in particular, by royal babies.

From where the rest of us stand, princesses seem to have a charmed and privileged life. Look at lovely Kate; she has the best of everything - fabulous homes, everything money can buy, good looks, a loving husband, a warm family and friends galore. She'll never have to worry about paying the electricity bill, or getting her son into a "good" school.

But, like all historical princesses, she has one big job to do - and woe betide her if she fails to do it. That job, of course, is to produce an heir; which Kate did in excellent middle-class "deliver the goods that were bought-and-paid-for" manner.

Even though the rule had been changed to accommodate the possibility that her first-born might be a girl, Kate had enough of an understanding of tradition and history to know that producing a boy first would keep everyone happy, and that is what she managed to do.

The law might have changed in a quite revolutionary manner to allow the first-born girl to succeed to the throne, but Kate wasn't going to be as vulgar as to be the first royal mother to set that precedent.

Now she has, in her no-nonsense, competent way, produced the first royal princess since Anne, daughter of the queen. Harper Beckham has officially been dethroned.

Prince George's little sister, Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, is now going to have to accept her position - whether she likes it or not - as the most important, celebrated, doted-over little girl on the planet.

Everything she does, says and wears will be discussed, dissected, approved, or disapproved of. She will always wonder if her every word and action is being recorded for uploading on social media; whether her friends are loyal; if people actually like her for herself or for her royal status.

Her life is not - nor ever will be - her own. As I said: who'd be a princess these days?

Which is why I hope that this is only the start of the royal babies. In our more democratic times, royal families have often been criticised as being an unnecessary burden on a nation.

They cost a lot to keep. They all need homes and castles and security, and lots of cash to keep them "in the manner to which they were born". Up until Kate arrived on the scene and entertained us all with her determined wooing of Prince William, the royals were seen as a drain on the state; after the manner in which they treated Diana, that most entertaining royal of all, many people began to wonder what on earth was the point of them?

The modern point of royalty, of course, is as a rather posh reality TV show. "Keeping up with the Middleton-Windsors" may not run off the tongue as easily as Keeping up with the Kardashians, but burrow under the bling and antique diamonds and, essentially, the two families are engaged in the same type of business: entertainment.

Which is why I hope Kate is only starting in the reproduction game.

If she doesn't want George and his little sister Charlotte to shoulder unremitting pressure and responsibility for the royal circus on their own, she needs to gather a big brood around her to share the limelight.

I know, it may not sound very feminist to say it, but Kate's job is to produce children.

She has already done so to order; a boy and a girl. In theory, her work is now done. She could retire from the royal reproduction line now and enjoy her life as mother of the future king. And, yet, why should she?

If we modern women were to be honest with ourselves, how many of us would admit that we'd like to have/had more children? We can't/couldn't, of course. Children are expensive.

Career-minded women (or those of us who need to put bread on the table) can't take all that time out for pregnancy and maternity leave and all those hours that are spent minding and caring for and loving children.

Children are a big investment. They are actually the only investment you will ever make that will cost you more and more each year and that you will never, ever see a financial return on.

Kids, in essence, are a luxury. You can only have as many as you can afford. These days, most of us settle for two. Three, if we're feeling lucky. Four, if we completely lose the run of ourselves. Anything more than four and you're either very rich - or very poor.

Large families used to be seen as the preserve of the religious poor. It was evidence of too much blind faith, a lack of contraception or self-control, or a clever ruse to get as much child benefit as possible.

Big families were once common. But that was back when people relied on children to care for them in their old age, when it was common for children to die young and you had as many as you could, as quickly as possible, before your luck ran out.

Then we discovered contraception, college fees and the old-age pension, and suddenly, big families were as fashionable as herpes. But now, oddly, they're back: suddenly, successful career women are having lots of children.

Why? Because not only does a bevy of children scream that you can afford nannies, cleaners, school fees, holidays etc, it also shows that you are wonderfully, fabulously healthy and fertile. Who can buy that, eh?

It's been called the "Victoria Beckham effect". Not only is she gorgeous, married to a hunk and carving out her own amazingly successful fashion career after being a member of one of the most iconic girl group ever, but she's also a normal mum to four lovely kids.

While the rest of us do our best to handle two kids and a mundane job that pays the bills, Vicky manages to pop out a fourth little cherub - in between getting a New York runway collection together and keeping her size-zero figure - quicker than you can say: "I'll pay the childminder to live in for the next six years".

"For me, it's no different than it is for other working mothers out there", said Victoria in a recent interview. Yeah right, Vicky, tell it to the Marines.

There's always the welfare debate: that for some people it may be in their financial interest to have a lot of children.

But the vast majority of us have to be content with a small family. I have two children. Most of my contemporaries also have one or two children.

The odd few may have three - and they acknowledge that it's tough to get by financially. But that's all the children we want, we insist.

We're not going to be slaves to our ovaries and our families the way our grandmothers were. We're liberated women. Not baby-making machines.

But, if I were to be totally honest with myself, I'd have to admit that if I were in a position like Kate Middleton, where I could have the best medical attention, health experts, nutritionists, cooks, cleaners, childcare, nannies, private schools and all the perks that come with being a royal, I'd probably have as many children as I could physically manage.

Why not? Just imagine not having to worry about cost or childcare, or maternity leave or college fees, or any of the basic ordinary day-to-day issues that arise when the mention of another child arises?

There's a lot to be said for big families - the warmth, the camaraderie, the sharing, the support.

And if you're born a royal, like the newest addition, little baby Charlotte, then surely it's ultimately better to be part of a big gang of siblings that can share the burden of constant media attention and scrutiny.

Don't tell anyone one I said it - it will ruin my feminist credentials - but I hope that Kate is only getting started on the baby front.

For successful powerful women, big families are back en vogue. Kate has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by surrounding herself with a big brood of royal children.

And, let's admit it, we all love a royal baby.

And two sisters give their opinion

Emma Hasson (34) lives in Londonderry with her husband Niall, an insurance broker and their five children, Abbey (13), Ethan (6), Darcy (5), Arya (2) and Thomas (7 months). She says:

We didn’t plan to have a big family, I thought two would be it. After we had our second child we felt there was room for more so we continued on.

Once you get to three children adding a couple more doesn’t make a difference as it’s chaos anyway, Going from no children to one child is a big shock as is going from one child to two children. Beyond that you’re doing so much to look after them it’s just a case of having a few extra bodies around while you do it.

My pregnancies haven’t been bad — I’ve had morning sickness and the usual pregnancy complaints but nothing to the point where I’ve thought “I’m never doing this again”.

At the moment I’ve reached my limit and my husband says we’ve have enough. A part of me still feels a bit broody so we’ve made an agreement that we’ll have no more babies for five years. The hope is by that time, they’ll have grown up a bit and I’ll have regained some sanity and won’t be quite so keen on sleepless nights and dirty nappies. At that point I might not want to go back to all that again. I never say never, though.”

Claire Allen (38) is a novelist and lives in Londonderry with her husband Neill, a financial advisor. They have two children, Joseph (11) and Cara (6). Claire is Emma Hasson’s older sister. She says:

Neill and I always presumed we would have three or four kids because of the size of our own families but when Joseph came along it was a bigger shock to the system than we’d anticipated. 

Then with Cara I had hyperemesis gravidarum, like the Duchess of Cambridge. It lasted the whole pregnancy — I was still throwing up when I was in labour. That’s one of the reasons we stopped at two children. I was admitted to hospital and put on a drip, too.

We’re so happy with two kids — after all God gave us two hands for a reason!

Sometimes I think it’s a shame that Cara won’t have a sister or Joseph a brother, as I did with my siblings. On the other hand, now our two are a bit older we can go out to dinner to places other than McDonald’s with proper cutlery and they can go to the toilet by themselves. We never have any trouble getting dinner reservations and most holiday deals are based around families of four.

I’m lucky that I’m close to Emma and spend a lot of time with her family. When I’m broody I can get baby cuddles from one of her little ones.”

Belfast Telegraph

Your Comments

COMMENT RULES: Comments that are judged to be defamatory, abusive or in bad taste are not acceptable and contributors who consistently fall below certain criteria will be permanently blacklisted. The moderator will not enter into debate with individual contributors and the moderator’s decision is final. It is Belfast Telegraph policy to close comments on court cases, tribunals and active legal investigations. We may also close comments on articles which are being targeted for abuse. Problems with commenting?

Read More

From Belfast Telegraph