Timing for distribution of "estate"

NinjaTune

MoneySeeker1 said:

The grandchildren aren't being left a token amount (ie a few hundred £s each). They are being left very sizeable amounts.

So is the 'unfairness' that the grandchildren are also receiving a lump sum in the will, thereby reducing what you assumed would be your 50% of everything?  I thought you meant that your sibling was being left a much larger percentage than you.

If you and your sibling are due to receive equal amounts as each other then I see absolutely no issue with your parents giving a "sizeable amount" to the grandchildren they loved and obviously want to help financially.  Better for them to have that money now/in trust than have to wait until they are 50+ when their parents pop their clogs.

xylophone

Even now with advanced dementia and with little understanding or memory she still longs for a child. 

This may seem an odd question but do you think that a doll would be of any comfort to her?

A cousin was telling me that a relative with dementia likes to cuddle a doll.

thepurplepixie

xylophone there are people in her home like that but as much as she loses virtually everything in her past, just muddled memories the things she is still aware of are that she still knows me (just about) and her longing for a baby but she isn't interested in dolls or cuddly toys.  She does like animals and one of her carers brings her dog into work most days and that is a big success, I guess it is the cuddling something alive.  They also have some small pets, guinea pigs I think, but I don't think she can cope with them, she is much better with a big placid dog.
Onwardsand upwards, I know it can be annoying as my friend is very vocal about it but for others, like my aunt, to say she is child free is also upsetting as aunt doesn't (or didn't) see it as something positive which I think childfree implies.  As the mother of 4 I have to agree that childfree is sometimes quite tempting!  As you say it is impossible to tell by looking so whichever you go for you risk insulting someone so apologies for that.  It is very sad for my aunt as she was an incredibly maternal person and although she had a good marriage and successful career the thing she wanted most was denied to her.  I suppose nowadays she would have a chance with things like IVF.

onwards&upwards

thepurplepixie said:

As you say it is impossible to tell by looking so whichever you go for you risk insulting someone so apologies for that.  

The best way to avoid it is to avoid defining women by whether or not they have children at all. 

thepurplepixie

Well I thought we were discussing what the OP was missing out on by not having the relationship many childless/childfree women can and do have with nieces/nephews or other children.  I think the fact she didn't have children was relevant.  With my aunt it is one of the first things SW/HCP ask, maybe they think my decisions will be challenged?  I don't know as I do have the LPA but I assume there must be a reason, they also ask if her husband is alive.  They seem to have a script.

BooJewels

onwards&upwards said:

thepurplepixie said:

As you say it is impossible to tell by looking so whichever you go for you risk insulting someone so apologies for that.  

The best way to avoid it is to avoid defining women by whether or not they have children at all. 

I'd absolutely agree in the broadest sense, but in the tone of this thread, it was a relevant distinction and pertinent to the point being made.  Then I added to it by using the same term myself - so apologies if I too offended.  In my case, the two women I referenced wouldn't even normally be thought about in those terms whatsoever - it was only then thinking about the special and unique relationship that leads to that made me even realise that was the common factor. 

Aunts (and uncles probably) and nieces/nephews do have a very particular dynamic.  My sister always said she would be the one to teach my son to swear and drink beer - and that diagonal relationship does give rise to a very different relationship than parents and grandparents.  I'm just delighted that my sister and son have always been such good mates.

thepurplepixie

Well the OP will be disgusted but after carryings on this weekend I am thinking of cutting one of my children out and leaving their share to their children, I did intend leaving money to those particular GC due to circumstances but I think they will get the full whack now.  Unfair?  Well if you want to be treated fairly then acting fairly would be a good start.

BooJewels

It doesn't matter two hoots @thepurplepixie what anyone else thinks - it's your estate to distribute however you wish and deem appropriate. 

thepurplepixie

Thanks BooJewels, I'm actually furious with my child and how my GC are being treated and I'm feeling more and more sure that I am doing the right thing.  It is hard, I would normally say I'd defend my kids no matter what but I now know it is no matter what except when it comes to my GC.

MoneySeeker1

thepurplepixie said:

Well the OP will be disgusted but after carryings on this weekend I am thinking of cutting one of my children out and leaving their share to their children, I did intend leaving money to those particular GC due to circumstances but I think they will get the full whack now.  Unfair?  Well if you want to be treated fairly then acting fairly would be a good start.

That's where this post is amongst those replies on this thread that are "a million miles" away from how things actually are.

I'm not in the slightest bit disgusted or even remotely disapproving of that.

I don't know what that "child" concerned has or hasn't done and whether it merits exclusion or no - but, in my book, they've not been excluded in the slightest. They are still getting the money - but it's just going "straight through them/past their nose" direct to their own children. So, in my book, that makes them still included just as much as they ever have been and still getting the same as any other children you have. In my book they are not a "person and their own children" - they are "one unit - counts as one person" and I don't see a parent and their own children as being "divisible - individual human beings" in this context. I see siblings as "units" - and that "unit" may be either "one childless person" or "one person with a child or children of their own" - but I still see them as "household units" so to say. For the purposes of a will - they simply aren't "individual people in their own right" in my opinion - they are "household units" and each "household unit" should be treated equally - whether that "household" has 0 children, 1 child, 2 children, lots of children.

A parent basically - as I see it - won't be concerned as to whether they get money personally directly themselves on the one hand OR it goes straight to their own children. Either way - their "household unit" has got the money and, so it's "come in their direction" whether they personally get it or whether their own children get it. I don't count parents and their children "separately" for inheritance purposes - whoever they are.

If I'd had two children to match my brothers two children and our parents had left the money straight past our noses to our children - I'd have still considered myself as "That was fair - I had half of it and he had half of it" and it simply wouldn't concern me that it had been my children, rather than me, that had got it. In my case - my children couldn't get it - because I don't have any. So my brother has been treated as "several household units" (though he is only one) and I've been treated as just one "household unit" (because I don't have children). That is where the problem lies - that our "household units" have been treated differently because of our different numbers of children we respectively have. 

I'm now "getting my affairs in order" personally and doing what I think is referred to as a "Swedish death cleanse" and, now that I've established that I will get that (unfairly low) share of our parents estate - then I'm not actually that concerned whether I personally get it or it gets "added to my own Estate". I've checked and found it will be added to my "own Estate" should I myself die - and can rest easy on that point at any rate that that (unfair) share is now mine - even if I'm not alive myself to actually physically get it and use it iyswim. It will come to my own "estate" and go where the rest of my "estate" goes (ie to a named charity in my own case) should anything happen to me - and you'd have to ask the Government just how much longer they plan on keeping us all in Lockdown to know whether I'll be living for the rest of my "expected lifespan" or they will be cutting it short for me by imposing this on us much longer.