I was having a conversation recently around how exhausting it can be with 2 kids under 2 years old when someone in the company said it is probably worse than having twins. This got me thinking, would it actually be worse than having twins?!?
I wouldn`t know not having twins myself. What I do know is this, it is great to have had a little bit of a break between Sarah and Niamh but also think it may have been easier had we had twins. I also know that Sarah, our older daughter (20 months) is less reliant on is which leaves us free time to spend more quality time with Niamh our youngest (5 months). It’s also great to involve Sarah to the degree that she helps us i.e. fetching nappies, wipes etc… and toys for her sister, thus helping her bond with Niamh. So this are some of the positives of having 2 under 2, also we were able to learn a lot of a parenting with the Sarah and I feel this has greatly helped us with Niamh in that we knew more about feeding times, changing times, routines etc… Another big positive was getting a little bit of respite in between from the sleepless nights.
But there are also the other elements, let’s not call them negatives, more things to ponder. If we had twins we would have had all of our sleepless nights out of the way in one go, weaning would have been easier as would a lot of the other little milestones such as teething, walking and when the time comes, potty training.
But how does this compare having twins?!? In my mind it comes down to routine and the biggest benefit of twins would be that you would have a routine for both children together whereas we now have two separate routines which can leave us a little stretched, to say the ;least!!
As multiple births run in both of our families who knows someday we may end up with triplets!! But for now and not having twins myself having been blessed with my two daughters, I would be keen to know what others think of the above conundrum?