mick said tonight he had lee the same age shirley had him maybe mick was 15 and linda 14 cos she is a bit younger and thats wgere I git the 14 from I dont know
hmm, maybe they retcon need then...cos I definitely remember it being said(by Stan, I think) that Linda was 15 when he found out she was pregnant. 3 kids before 20 :eek: and all in a year of each other too!
They're braver than me! I wasn't saying it was a bad thing by the way (don't want to cause offence to anyone) just that personally I couldn't have done it myself
me either but then back in those times that were late 70's/ early 80's its how it was you had your family close together. then the economic crash happened and people could never afford to have families so close together, then of course labour sent the mums to work and childcare became expensive.
I agree with others about it being an early treat since his birthday is so early in the year.
My mam went to America last October and her birthday wasn't till December but she still says she went to America for her 60th, meaning that it was a present for that birthday not that it happened on her actual birthday or that she celebrated her birthday there.
I went to glastonbury for my 30th even though it was nearly 6 months after, I pretended i was still in my twenties the whole time
hmm, maybe they retcon need then...cos I definitely remember it being said(by Stan, I think) that Linda was 15 when he found out she was pregnant. 3 kids before 20 :eek: and all in a year of each other too!
15 sounds right for it tho cos i think lee is 22 and linda is stil 37
me either but then back in those times that were late 70's/ early 80's its how it was you had your family close together. then the economic crash happened and people could never afford to have families so close together, then of course labour sent the mums to work and childcare became expensive.
guess its just how the world works
Well not always. My brother was born in 67 and i was born in 71. Mu Mum's best friend had her kids in 61, 64 and 71. Contraception was around back then and some women (my Mum and her friends) did have careers.
But i certainly know a lot of people who did have kids very close together. 2 of my friends have a brother almost exactly 11 months older than them.
Re Linda,s age - didn't Lee turn 22 last Autumn so born 1992. Mick turned 37 last January and Linda 37 in July. So Linda was 14 when Lee was conceived, 15 when he was born. Mick will probably have been 15 (just) when he was both conceived and born.
Well not always. My brother was born in 67 and i was born in 71. Mu Mum's best friend had her kids in 61, 64 and 71. Contraception was around back then and some women (my Mum and her friends) did have careers.
But i certainly know a lot of people who did have kids very close together. 2 of my friends have a brother almost exactly 11 months older than them.
Re Linda,s age - didn't Lee turn 22 last Autumn so born 1992. Mick turned 37 last January and Linda 37 in July. So Linda was 14 when Lee was conceived, 15 when he was born. Mick will probably have been 15 (just) when he was both conceived and born.
Well not always. My brother was born in 67 and i was born in 71. Mu Mum's best friend had her kids in 61, 64 and 71. Contraception was around back then and some women (my Mum and her friends) did have careers.
But i certainly know a lot of people who did have kids very close together. 2 of my friends have a brother almost exactly 11 months older than them.
Re Linda,s age - didn't Lee turn 22 last Autumn so born 1992. Mick turned 37 last January and Linda 37 in July. So Linda was 14 when Lee was conceived, 15 when he was born. Mick will probably have been 15 (just) when he was both conceived and born.
I had mine close together. I knew I didn't want to go back to work until they were all at school because nursery schools and childminders could be very dodgy in the 60s...I wouldn't have trusted them with my children. Leaving long gaps between them just wasn't practical.
I had mine close together. I knew I didn't want to go back to work until they were all at school because nursery schools and childminders could be very dodgy in the 60s...I wouldn't have trusted them with my children. Leaving long gaps between them just wasn't practical.
That's fair enough - i can see the logic in having them close together for that reason.
My Mum was a secondary school teacher, most of her friends were as well or Nurses so maybe it was actually easier to get back into that type of job for a couple of years. Also, re childcare, there was a Nursery run by Essex County Council specifically and exclusively for the children of teachers as an incentive to get them back to work. I went there from when i was about 18 months (which was quite unusual in the early 70s) so Mum didn't need to worry that I wasn't being looked after.
The standard pay was dreadful but there were advantages to being in a Nationalised Profession back then!
me either but then back in those times that were late 70's/ early 80's its how it was you had your family close together. then the economic crash happened and people could never afford to have families so close together, then of course labour sent the mums to work and childcare became expensive.
guess its just how the world works
Yep! Money (or lack of it!) has definitely been one of the reasons why my OH and I will have a 3 year 4 month gap with our two children. I would rather not have to work or pay childcare either but as you say quite rightly, that's how the real world works!
Obviously the soap world is totally oblivious to those sort of things
Yep! Money (or lack of it!) has definitely been one of the reasons why my OH and I will have a 3 year 4 month gap with our two children. I would rather not have to work or pay childcare either but as you say quite rightly, that's how the real world works!
Obviously the soap world is totally oblivious to those sort of things
Re lack of money though -haven't there been reported birth surges during this last Recession and also following the 3 day week time in early 74? People make babies because they haven't got the money to go out and do anything else!
Re lack of money though -haven't there been reported birth surges during this last Recession and also following the 3 day week time in early 74? People make babies because they haven't got the money to go out and do anything else!
Oh I didn't know that. I'm just speaking from personal experience. I guess some people obviously do get jiggy with it if they can't afford to do anything else
Oh I didn't know that. I'm just speaking from personal experience. I guess some people obviously do get jiggy with it if they can't afford to do anything else
Well it does probably show a lack of foresight for the following 18 years (haven't got the money for a film then, will a baby make it better?) but it does apparently happen. Economic crisis leads to birth surge.
Nancy recently turned 21, Johnny was 19 when he arrived so he must be 20 now, and Lee is still 22.
This means that, since Mick has just turned 38, Lee was born when Mick was 15. Depending on whether Lee's birthday is before or after July, Linda was either 14 or 15.
Comments
hmm, maybe they retcon need then...cos I definitely remember it being said(by Stan, I think) that Linda was 15 when he found out she was pregnant. 3 kids before 20 :eek: and all in a year of each other too!
me either but then back in those times that were late 70's/ early 80's its how it was you had your family close together. then the economic crash happened and people could never afford to have families so close together, then of course labour sent the mums to work and childcare became expensive.
guess its just how the world works
I went to glastonbury for my 30th even though it was nearly 6 months after, I pretended i was still in my twenties the whole time
15 sounds right for it tho cos i think lee is 22 and linda is stil 37
Well not always. My brother was born in 67 and i was born in 71. Mu Mum's best friend had her kids in 61, 64 and 71. Contraception was around back then and some women (my Mum and her friends) did have careers.
But i certainly know a lot of people who did have kids very close together. 2 of my friends have a brother almost exactly 11 months older than them.
Re Linda,s age - didn't Lee turn 22 last Autumn so born 1992. Mick turned 37 last January and Linda 37 in July. So Linda was 14 when Lee was conceived, 15 when he was born. Mick will probably have been 15 (just) when he was both conceived and born.
sounds about right
I had mine close together. I knew I didn't want to go back to work until they were all at school because nursery schools and childminders could be very dodgy in the 60s...I wouldn't have trusted them with my children. Leaving long gaps between them just wasn't practical.
That's fair enough - i can see the logic in having them close together for that reason.
My Mum was a secondary school teacher, most of her friends were as well or Nurses so maybe it was actually easier to get back into that type of job for a couple of years. Also, re childcare, there was a Nursery run by Essex County Council specifically and exclusively for the children of teachers as an incentive to get them back to work. I went there from when i was about 18 months (which was quite unusual in the early 70s) so Mum didn't need to worry that I wasn't being looked after.
The standard pay was dreadful but there were advantages to being in a Nationalised Profession back then!
Yep! Money (or lack of it!) has definitely been one of the reasons why my OH and I will have a 3 year 4 month gap with our two children. I would rather not have to work or pay childcare either but as you say quite rightly, that's how the real world works!
Obviously the soap world is totally oblivious to those sort of things
Re lack of money though -haven't there been reported birth surges during this last Recession and also following the 3 day week time in early 74? People make babies because they haven't got the money to go out and do anything else!
Oh I didn't know that. I'm just speaking from personal experience. I guess some people obviously do get jiggy with it if they can't afford to do anything else
Well it does probably show a lack of foresight for the following 18 years (haven't got the money for a film then, will a baby make it better?) but it does apparently happen. Economic crisis leads to birth surge.
The decade changes are never easy. However 30 doesn't seem so bad now that I'm closer to 40.
They did it to Ian in 91, made him 21 two years after being 18.
This means that, since Mick has just turned 38, Lee was born when Mick was 15. Depending on whether Lee's birthday is before or after July, Linda was either 14 or 15.