Multi-generation households 'near Victorian levels'

I know it's easy to look back through rose-tinted spectacles and even I don't go back in time quite as far as Queen Victoria but I would love to see a return to some victorian values, especially those regarding multigeneration households and the attitudes towards caring for both young and old. The young were taught to tolerate and respect their elders and in turn the old benefited from that tolerance and respect. Because of lifetime family commitment there was but little need for retirement homes, and similarly day nurseries and child-minders were the exception rather than the norm. So, incidentally, was divorce, but perhaps not always for the same reason. To me, it seems a return to multigeneration households can only be for society's good, even if this comes about as a direct result of the desperate economic conditions in which some of us may now find ourselves. It could be the silver lining which rescues an otherwise cloudy future. I realise that the expectations of the typical victorian family were guided, even enforced by economic pressures but, though not all families lived in harmony - 'praying together and staying together' - of necessity the tendency was towards sharing and caring. Of course there were also examples of disfunctionality, with cases of extreme cruelty, neglect and numerous other atrocities, but many of these continue to the present day, albeit under different guises. All four of my working-class grandparents lived out their twilight years in the company of their children and grandchildren - to the benefit of all concerned - yet many of my own generation - including me - have made career moves away from our family's roots, often leaving behind fiercely independent parents to fend for themselves until the inevitable happens and we find ourselves forced into making decisions which we may later regret. My 86 year-old widowed mother-in-law understandably stubbornly refuses to leave her 3 bed house in the area where she's spent all her life, yet she's finding it increasingly hard to cope with stairs and even her own day-to-day needs. We live 120 miles away and my wife, the only surviving child, currently spends half her time travelling up and down the country to perform her filial duties. Sound familiar? With the increasing price of fuel we're having to make sacrifices so this practice can continue but what's the alternative... a retirement home? Whatever would have happened to her if we, as we once planned to do, had made the decision to emigrate? Were we selfish? It certainly didn't seem so at the time; indeed we were actively encouraged by our parents to improve upon their 'lot' and to make our own way in a world which was our oyster. I've even encouraged my own children to do the same. The question I raise may provoke disagreement or even incredulity among some 'Lovemoney' readers but I will nevertheless proceed with it... Why should we expect the state, and all those of us who contribute towards it, to pick up those duties which could and should be undertaken by family? We cannot absolve ourselves of the responsibility of caring for family members, be they young or old, just because we feel the need to develop our careers and/or to earn more cash. Isn't it time to take a reality check and decide what's really important; a new house/car/ TV/suite/kitchen/iphone or ipod, a holiday.......or security and happiness for the wider family and the peace of mind that comes partly from knowing that you've done what you can for previous generations and partly from knowing that your own future will also be more secure and happy. Who knows, in a multigeneration household you could find yourself better off financially too. It's a bit late for me now... but then again perhaps there's still time. The house next door to my mother-in-law has just come onto the market! In any case, I think I might fit that stairlift now, even though we may not need one for another 30 years!

80 years ago we were very poor compared to our lifestyle today but the country was rich and ran a large part of the world - successfully. We had a house, rented of course, but could afford it. We spent nothing on phones or TV as TV didn't exist and the phone box was 1/2 mile and cost a penny a minute - but we had no one to call. We had no cars, but rode a bike or walked. We made our own entertainment or listened to the BBC radio. Holiday - never had one, no where to go other than a local beauty spot or a day on the beach. Air travel was unheard of and undreamed of. If the money that was spent today on smart phones, Sky TV, taking the car everywhere, exotic vacations, etc, was saved then there would soon be a deposit for a house - not a tax payer subsidised "affordable" house but a genuine commercially priced house.

@electricblue - My local parks were built by industrialists as was many of the churches. Here in the West Midlands we had lot of industry and they also built the canals and railways. There are some relics of the past around today. Modern public amenities are rarely built and even then are built by local authorities. The hospital was built on a PFI with private money but that was hardly philanthropic. As far as individual behaviour is concerned, I only know about that of my own ancestors who were quite empathic towards others at a time when life for many was hard. It was a time of right wing politics with only two political parties, the Tories and the Whigs. In the latter part of the 19th century one local gentleman sold his wife and child in the local market - I do not have rose coloured spectacles - I know my local history. I have original books from the 19th century. It wasn't all bad though, out of the poverty came progress and just to upset all the idiots, dare I mention unions and the Labour party in the early 20th century! Charles Dickens wrote some good books about the Victorian era, the good and the bad; for those not handicapped by a Comprehensive education.