Alex Gerrard wife to one of UK’s richest footballers. Her husband, Steven, earns around £140,000 per week playing for Liverpool FC.

Dolled up: (left to right) Alex, Loured, Lexie and Lilly-Ella

For clothing Alex Gerrard spends nothing less than £3,000 for her kids daily dressing read how the Daily mail is reporting

Alex Gerrard is married to one of the country’s richest footballers. Her husband, Steven, earns around £140,000 per week playing for Liverpool FC.

That’s a pretty amazing sum. £20,000 a day, £800 an hour; a torrent of money pouring into the Gerrard household, a non-stop cavalcade of cash bouncing off the walls. What on earth to spend all that lovely lolly on?

Judging by a Gerrard she-family outing this week, the answer seems to be... accessories. Nice clothes. Accessories. And even more accessories

Still, there is nothing strange about that. Designer handbags, must-have clothes and extortionately priced shoes are standard accoutrements for any self-respecting WAG.

What was so remarkable about the Gerrards, however, what was so boggle-minding about this particular appearance, was the emergence of a new tribe of fashion fiends. 

Enter the Wag-ettes, or perhaps even the Wad-ettes. For this time it was neither the wives nor the girlfriends of footballers making the headlines, but the daughters.

The bountifully attired offspring showing that they can do conspicuous consumption just as ostentatiously as the grown-ups.  

On an outing into town, the Gerrard girls were laden with enough fashionable plunder to open a pop-up designer shop. Trainers that cost more than £100. The latest tops and jeans. But it was the handbags that killed me.  

Nine-year-old Lilly-Ella carried a £2,500 red quilted handbag from Chanel, while Lexie, seven, nestled a £1,500 Celine handbag in the crook of her arm.

With mum’s contribution - £630 trainers, £750 jacket, £115 leggings and her own £1,800 Celine bag - one newspaper noted that this brought the total cost of the group’s outfits and accessories to £8,000.

Even by general WAG standards, this was blinging blingtastic. However, it does make you wonder if children - any children - should really be indulged with such expensive luxuries when they are too young to understand or appreciate the value of them.

Lovely lolly: Steven Gerrard earns around £140,000 per week playing for Liverpool FC

You can’t blame the kids. At that age, I’d have had that Chanel beauty crammed with wax crayons, Little Kitty purses and smashed Kinder eggs before you could say: ‘Put that back, you’re not allowed to touch Mummy’s stuff.’ 

I’d have filled it with leaky felt tips and sherbet dabs, or quite possibly lent it to a boy to pretend he was a bus conductor taking fares. 

But a £2,500 handbag for a little girl? That is a bit eye-popping, to say the least. 

However - don’t laugh - sometimes I think it is quite tough for very wealthy parents to make good choices about how or how not to indulge their children. 

My heart is not exactly bleeding for them - far rather that, than the worry of being able to afford even a modest Christmas for their kids, for example - but everything is relative.

You can’t expect rich mummies and daddies to lavish everything the Cricket boutique can offer on themselves, and then dress their children from charity shops. 

And all parents want the best they can afford for their child, no matter what the price parameters of their situation might be.

The problem is this - if boys and girls are going to be perpetually lavished in such a way, what kind of adults will they grow into?

What does endless indulgence do to a child’s ambition, what does it do to their friendships at school, how will they ever learn the value of anything? 

So, imagine a pampered kid after two decades of being terminally spoiled and used to excess and nothing but the best.

What kind of person would they be if they were never able to understand what is special and exceptional? 

They would never know the pleasure and quiet sense of achievement gained from saving up pocket money or Saturday job wages to buy a lemon and white angora top from Chelsea Girl - dreamed about for weeks.

Or a smock from Dorothy Perkins, a blue duffle coat or even another pair of cream soda tights - the lusted-after trophies of my  own youth.

Really, excessive pampering - especially with the cheap, designer trophies so prized in adulthood - is not fair on any children. It puts a crimp in their innocence. 

If little girls like the Gerrards are wearing outfits like this before they are even into double figures, what are they going to expect to wear when they are teenagers? As young women?

Or when they actually have to go out into the world, earn a living and feed and clothe themselves?  

Channelling Chanel and all the rest can only put a lot of demands on the girls as they grow older. 

The pressure is already on to keep being more fashionable, more courant, to always have the latest and the best. Nothing but new season Lanvin will do, darling. 

Meantime, in playgrounds and schools across the UK, having such an ostentatious designer wardrobe can only serve to distance a child from other children. All too often they are branded by their designer brands. 

So I think it’s wrong to entirely transpose a sophisticated, designer lifestyle onto any child, anywhere. 

It might be what Mummy and Daddy most cherish and desire, but that’s not to say it is going to be good for the kids, too. 

A little perspective wouldn’t go amiss. Let’s try to be adult about it all.