Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because on a primal level, we all want to be the one most loved by our parents - even in adulthood. It is important for parents to convey to their children that they are very loved.

When a parent leaves more to one sibling than another, the message is, "I love him more." This is very damaging on a primal level. It also leaves conflict and bitterness in the departed parent's wake.

My most fervent wish for my children is that they love and support one another, long past the time I am here on earth. I want them to be united and close. I imagine all parents have this wish. Leaving more to one sibling than to another is a pretty surefire way to divide them.

I think some parents do this when they don't live their kids equally sort of as a consolation prize.

I'm the pp whose parents left everything to the youngest and don't mind. I have always known my parents love me the most

You proved my point.

Sad that your parents did this.

The only person who is sad is you. We all get along well, support each other and have a close relationship. We love our youngest sibling and understand why our parents left everything to him and his family. It is based on need and we understand that division of money is not a reflection of our parents love for us.

We probably would not feel the same if we needed the money but we don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because on a primal level, we all want to be the one most loved by our parents - even in adulthood. It is important for parents to convey to their children that they are very loved.

When a parent leaves more to one sibling than another, the message is, "I love him more." This is very damaging on a primal level. It also leaves conflict and bitterness in the departed parent's wake.

My most fervent wish for my children is that they love and support one another, long past the time I am here on earth. I want them to be united and close. I imagine all parents have this wish. Leaving more to one sibling than to another is a pretty surefire way to divide them.

I think some parents do this when they don't live their kids equally sort of as a consolation prize.

I'm the pp whose parents left everything to the youngest and don't mind. I have always known my parents love me the most

You proved my point.

Sad that your parents did this.

Anonymous wrote:Because on a primal level, we all want to be the one most loved by our parents - even in adulthood. It is important for parents to convey to their children that they are very loved.

When a parent leaves more to one sibling than another, the message is, "I love him more." This is very damaging on a primal level. It also leaves conflict and bitterness in the departed parent's wake.

My most fervent wish for my children is that they love and support one another, long past the time I am here on earth. I want them to be united and close. I imagine all parents have this wish. Leaving more to one sibling than to another is a pretty surefire way to divide them.

I think some parents do this when they don't live their kids equally sort of as a consolation prize.

I'm the pp whose parents left everything to the youngest and don't mind. I have always known my parents love me the most

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't get why more money isn't left to the grandchildren. My parents will be in their mid to late 60s when their parents die, AKA already retired. Whereas my cousins are struggling in their early 20s-early 30s with wanting to marry, but having little money; wanting to have a baby, but don't have paid maternity, nor enough money to take 8 weeks unpaid; wanting to move out of a studio apartment, but not money for a downpayment; and still paying off 50k + in student loans. I'm so glad that our parents will each get 500k+, but man it's already hard to see them taking their month long cruises when we don't have paid annual leave even. (DH and I are doing fine and don't need the money, but cousins could).

This is so bizarre. What do their vacation choices have to do with your work arrangements?

The reason that parents leave money (for the most part) to their children and not their grandchildren is that the same money, handled carefully, will eventually make its way to the grandchildren, either during the parents' lives or afterwards. Every parent is invested in the well-being of his/her children.

My mother left money to me and I am putting part of it in investments for the eventual benefit of my children. I will give it to them when I think they need it (grad school, house down payment), and they will not know about it before then. Had my mother left it directly to them, they might not handle it carefully, or might count on it for things that they should work towards themselves.

Because on a primal level, we all want to be the one most loved by our parents - even in adulthood. It is important for parents to convey to their children that they are very loved.

When a parent leaves more to one sibling than another, the message is, "I love him more." This is very damaging on a primal level. It also leaves conflict and bitterness in the departed parent's wake.

My most fervent wish for my children is that they love and support one another, long past the time I am here on earth. I want them to be united and close. I imagine all parents have this wish. Leaving more to one sibling than to another is a pretty surefire way to divide them.

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't get why more money isn't left to the grandchildren. My parents will be in their mid to late 60s when their parents die, AKA already retired. Whereas my cousins are struggling in their early 20s-early 30s with wanting to marry, but having little money; wanting to have a baby, but don't have paid maternity, nor enough money to take 8 weeks unpaid; wanting to move out of a studio apartment, but not money for a downpayment; and still paying off 50k + in student loans. I'm so glad that our parents will each get 500k+, but man it's already hard to see them taking their month long cruises when we don't have paid annual leave even. (DH and I are doing fine and don't need the money, but cousins could).

What? Why? Just curious- those are two totally different issues? Of course they should live it up in their retirement and travel, they are literally facing mortality in varying degrees! Having an overbearing corporate culture isn't related to that. And on top of that- they already did their lifetime of work!

Anonymous wrote:I think the 3% is just a proxy for a lifetime of anger and resentment. I like to think I'd be able to rise above all that when my time comes but who knows.

This. If it seems unimaginable to you to get upset with your own sibling over this, as to be it does to be honest, it is just a reflection of a good relationship. This is clearly a proxy fight that they were waiting for some spark to start, IMO

... because they love their kids equally.

My parents left everything to the youngest sibling who has the least resources, most kids and arguably needs the most help. There are three of us and the other two are ok with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my family we follow primogeniture. The oldest male child gets the lot, apart from some cash and keepsakes.

It works for our family.

Wow! Do you have a family heritage from a culture where this is the norm?

Now that would piss me off, but as you said - it works for your family, and if everyone comes up knowing that's the deal, then I imagine it is fine.

My mom's family has this. Sadly, it made her very bitter and she consequently made and kept her own favored child. As you can imagine, a lifetime of a favored child tore our family apart, and especially hindered the favored one. The favored one took everything, learned to steal, and is particularly fond of masquerading as a martyr. It creates an awful situation for all involved. Either make it even, or give it to charity, but don't allow your legacy to create strife.

Seriously.

I agree with the PPs that whatever is decided should be discussed beforehand. My mother comes from a large family and was the only one of her siblings to get a college degree. Financially, she and my dad are in a way better position than any of her siblings. Her mother's will splits everything up equally, and my mother is named as the executor. My mom has discussed with her mother that she should communicate this in advance- it's not a large estate and the amount my mom will inherit will not be a lot to her, but will be a lot to some of her siblings. Her mother is adamant that everything be split equally in the spirit of fairness. I'm very concerned that the other siblings will be upset when they realize how it's split, since my mom doesn't really need the money and she will be the executor.

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents gave their house to one child, got it appraised and gave the same amount as the appraisal to each other child. They were lucky they had that much cash available, but I think it was very helpful they did this. They also transferred ownership well before they passed away so when they died, there was nothing to disagree about.

This is great on the equality front, but it is always better to inherit property then to receive it as a gift before death.

Owning a home or property together after a parents' death can be really complicated because often siblings have different ideas of what they'd like to do with the property - and them being in a "partnership" they didn't want makes it difficult to settle the matter.

Whatever you do, do not believe a family property in equal shares to multiple siblings. My great-grandmother did that with her six sons (notably not her two daughters but different issue) and it was a total nightmare. Everyone wanted to use the house (waterfront summer home) but no one wanted to lift a finger to do anything to keep it up or God forbid improve it.

Anonymous wrote:Fascinated by the primogeniture...is your last name Darcy by chance????

I think the primogeniture PP is sarcasm.

Fascinated by the primogeniture...is your last name Darcy by chance????