New Mummy Blog: Is There A Perfect Age Gap Between Children?

When we announced we were expecting our second child, the news was met with a few raised eyebrows.

I was pregnant again less than a year after Honor was born - family knew before Honor’s first birthday, with friends finding out in the weeks following.

It was quick: I hadn’t even made it back to work from maternity leave yet.

There will be a 19-month age gap between our children, which seems respectable enough to me, but it hasn’t stopped the comments – ranging from “you’ve become a baby-making machine” to “was it planned?”.

Is that question ever appropriate?

When sharing reciprocal news with friends who were announcing their pregnancy around the same time as us, the dad-to-be laughed at our age gap. This was their third child, with their older two children now of school age.

“Good luck, mate,” he said to Adam. “We’ve done it with two under two and it’s hard. This time round will be much easier for us because the kids are old enough to listen to reason and to help out. If I tell them to wait at a lamppost, they wait at a lamppost.”

They didn’t know at the time, but it turns out they’re having twins – which puts our 19-month age gap into perspective. Two under two? What about two born minutes apart?

Being ultra-aware of pregnancy and parenting research in the news due to our own situation, I was eager to read the numerous age-gap articles that came out around the time of the announcement that Kate and Wills were expecting royal baby number two.

On the understanding that their second child is due in April 2015, this means a 20 or 21 month gap between Prince George and his sibling. Not too dissimilar to Honor and hers, and apparently this means I’ve opted for ‘back-to-back babies’ – getting the ‘boring’ baby years out of the way in one go.

It’s not the ‘perfect’ age gap though, according to most experts who have voiced their opinions on the topic, and who would all conclude that I’ve been a little too quick. Two, or two to three, years seem to be favoured as the ideal break between siblings.

The BBC quote Sarah Jarvis, a GP and media regular, who says this is the perfect gap for the mother’s sake too.

“A woman goes through a lot giving birth, especially if they breastfeed afterwards. In nutrition terms, it takes a year to recover. They will need to have time to rebuild their pelvic floor. Two years is good because it gives a bit of leeway. And anything over three years may be too long as it can cause sibling rivalry.”

All the research in the world won’t make a difference though. We’ve got a lively, bossy toddler who is about to become a big sister at the age of a year and a half.

The general consensus seems to be that we’ve got our work cut out for us with two under two, two still in nappies, two that are too young to reason and rationalise.

But we can’t change it. And nor would we want to, as we’ll also have two close in age, who will hopefully also be close in their relationship and who can play together and enjoy each other’s company as peers as well as siblings. We hope!

[New Mummy Blog: Picking Out That All Important Baby Name]

[New Mummy Blog: One Plus One Is Not Two]

How soon after having your first child did you have a second? Share your story in the comments.