To not see the difference between saving and inheritance?

Probably best not to lie or lie by ommission and address the financial concerns head-on and deal with the consequences.
Neither is right and wrong in their approach of spending or saving. It's yours to do with what you want.

I think there’s a morality attached to money for a lot of people, but this doesn’t hold true for all.

OP’s lived reality is different to her husband’s, and her values are shaped by different experiences to his. Those things listed, and the values attached to struggling, people often find value in because they have no other choice than to struggle. It’s finding meaning in things you have no other choice than to go through. OP does have a choice though, and she’s never necessarily going to perceive the same value from experiencing life as her husband did/does. And that’s okay.

His way isn’t inherently ‘better’, and he shouldn’t expect her to jump through hoops she doesn’t need to in order to satisfy his own beliefs as to ‘the right way’. He wants her to conform to his way and adopt his viewpoints, and he’s no more right to ask that of her than she is to ask that of him. Understanding someone doesn’t mean you have to change to suit them, and her not changing isn’t more unreasonable than him expecting her to. The things he has accepted, the house for example, have directly benefited him. That’s something he may struggle with, but instead of putting the onus for that on her, needs to come to terms with OP having a different reality. He married her knowing this, after all.

It’s an interesting one.

I am lucky to come from an extremely wealthy family and my parents have, and continue to, pass money to me and my sibling even tho neither of us need it but because it has to come down the line and it may as well be now. My husbands family is not at all poor in real terms but is compared to mine.

DH would never make any comment and the bulk goes towards creating more investment streams, probably for when we retire along with some for school fees but not enough to make us lazy (we run our own business). When I die all that family money goes straight to our children as we make more than enough to have a strong financial position anyway and as I say, we need to be self sufficient.

I think the spendthrift accusations and predictions of impending doom are a bit hysterical, OP sounds very well off and yet still works. Hardly the idle rich. Loads of people on here have help from their families, financially or something like childcare which saves money, just because the amounts are higher scaled up for OPs wealth doesn't make this any different imo.

However OP you asked what is the difference between inheritance and earned income. I think there is a difference. Saying "it's only money" is the privilege of the very well off - for most people it isn't "just" money, it can be security, comfort, ability to support family, pride, self respect and a million other things. Of course its all manufactured in an inorganic capitalist world - but we live in that world!

I would appreciate a lump sum that my husband worked for and saved more than one he had received from family. The earned sum would represent sacrifice, hard work, commitment - a tangible proof of his choosing me/our shared goals over something else. And yes it may seem silly to you as the money is there, but it seems it was important to him.

It doesn't sound true that he has completely ignore your financial wishes - he has accepted you've purchased a house presumably beyond his means, and that he benefits from your wealth. He may struggle with that - and honestly, would you want him happily and immediately diving in and living an easy life on your money? But maybe this holiday was his idea od you showing that you can see it from his side and understand his values

This situation is so interesting to me, because the dynamic between me and my EXDP was so similar, only the money I had was all earned not from a trust.

Whenever we agreed to save for something, and I hadn't, I would generally just use that month's salary, as I always had significant disposable. Most of my money went on the house.

My EXDP also refused to join finances "because he thought I would spend all his money", yet I earned more than double his salary; at that point he was on a salary of £50k while I was on £125k. I'd never asked him for a penny, and he'd never had to bail me out.

My EXDP also came from a scarcity background from when he was growing up, and while I'd never been rich growing up, a solid career which meant I'd been earning £50k from the age of 25, and increasing from then so I always had money (and always spent it).

If you want the marriage to succeed you and your DH need to somehow get on the same page, not necessarily his or yours but a new page, and financial counselling is a must otherwise you'll find it hard to understand each other's perspective.

Well exactly. Really the financially sensible thing for the OP would have been to not marry him. She was very young (how much under 25? And how much older is he DH?) when she got married, if I was her parent I would have told her there was no rush. And I find it quite interesting that he accepted an asset like a house but is quibbling over a holiday.

If he wanted to be independent (which is a perfectly reasonable desire) he could have not got married and kept finances separate or he could have refused to be on the deeds for the house (or bought his own house separately using a mortgage). He could then have accepted luxuries like meals out or holidays. Then he wouldn't have been dependent on the OP for financial security but he could have graciously accepted her spending her money on him to treat him and provide a nice standard of life.

The problem with his attitude is that OP has no need to live as he wants her to, he’s asking her to do so because he wants her to conform to thus values. She has the money, and pretending she doesn’t for the sake of, what, a moral position? isn’t going to change this fact.

He seems to want them to live as if the money isn’t there and available to her to use in this way (and available to use in this way without sacrificing their financial security), but it is. His position isn’t better than hers, and just as people are saying he shouldn’t have to change, the onus isn’t on her to either. His problem with it is just that - his problem, and sometimes people can have a problem with what you do even if you’re doing nothing wrong.

OP: as much as cocklodging can quickly become an issue, so can a partner that has a chip on their shoulder about their partner having money. Imo, based on what you’ve said, he doesn’t see it as two people having different but equally valid perspectives, he thinks he’s right and you’re wrong, and he expects you to adapt to him and learn the ‘correct’ way to be.

Another way of looking at it OP is that you are in a very fortunate position of having parents who could offer very generous financial assistance for life for you and you've met a man who isn't a cocklodging tosser.

It's interesting that you think it's his attitude that's holding you both back in life. That suggests that your default position is still going to remain why save or have joint goals when I can just take it out the investments with a focus on spending all the time.

His reserved attitude to spending is not something that's going to hold you both back. It could be the end of you as a couple if you value your lifelong approach to spending, aversion to saving anything, and see him as a problem to be fixed.

If you want this relationship to last long term then you both need to get on the same page with finances, which will probably mean changes on both sides. He might need to loosen up a bit, but you are also going to have to get a handle on the value of money.

She bought their house - which he could potentially walk away with 50% of. She’s shown extraordinary trust in him.

I suppose it depends on size of trust fund if it's a million earning 5% it is providing 50,000 income without diminshing capital if you are taking 10,000 of it you are adding 40,000 to your million pot.
OP I think you and Dh need to talk more about money and be more transparent just say you are using income not that you are saving. just be honest and say I'm pasying my share with dividend income

He married a woman that does have exactly that. It doesn’t matter that other people don’t because that isn’t her situation, or indeed his.

Understanding should go in both directions.

Whether it's done above board or not, you still take money from your parent/trust. You may have paid back the £3k, many ppl don't have someone to pick up the slack cos we can't be arsed saving.
Be a bit understanding of your DH instead of blundering on expecting him to nod and agree, you can't be that oblivious to his feelings surely.

Agreed. He’s thinking about the future and you don’t seem dependable- he’ll be concerned about how you’ll manage going forward.

All good points GnomeDePlume

They're on such different pages and there doesn't seem to be much common ground on financial outlook or values at the moment.

Or perhaps using windfall triggers memories of an impoverished childhood when a small windfall would be used up on a takeaway rather than saved for something. When living hand to mouth it is not uncommon (or even unreasonable) to use little cash 'wins' for a bit of instant enjoyment.

Using windfall money on something frivolous like a holiday may trigger memories of financial insecurity. Fun today but no school shoes tomorrow.

Counselling for both might help get to the bottom of why DH is uncomfortable with the use of family wealth. And also why OP is so comfortable with it.

At the moment it seems like OP and her DH don't understand each other.

Also if your DH behaved like it was equally his money that could also be quite unappealing.

My DPs are very generous and have paid for DS to have private education and give us various lump sums. It all goes into the joint account and sometimes I feel DH is a little grabby in his expectations - it's hard to describe.

I don’t think she needs to be jumping through hoops to suit his mindset. The reality if she doesn’t need to change in order to achieve the same result, he’s expecting her to because of his own beliefs in regards to the ‘right way’ of getting money.

From what OP has said, he expects her to compromise to suit him. In his eyes, she is wrong and he is right. He’s not trying to see her perspective, or adapt his own way of thinking.

She doesn’t have his mindset and he can’t force her to any more than she can force him to have it. Attempts will only result in resentment from one or both. Unfortunately they appear to be financially incompatible, and whether that’s something that can be surmounted or not I don’t know 🤷🏻‍♀️

I know this is about general attitude to spending, but to me a lot depends on how funds much you actually have sitting waiting for you.

If it's enough for you to be mortgage free, have enough for a comfortable pension and - worst case scenario- to cover living costs if you couldn't work for whatever reason, then it would be silly to quibble over the origin of a few thousand or whatever the holiday costs.

However if that's the case, why not just say you were paying for your share from the trust fund, rather than pretending you were planning to save for it?

But you haven't earned them. Somebody else did - and you didn't even want to get married enough to bother saving £100 a week for 7 months to pay your share, you carried on as normal and then just wailed a bit until other people stumped up the dough.

Bad take, I think. And I'm speaking as someone who genuinely only became familiar with non-upper-floor buttons in hotel lifts after marrying DH and going on holiday with him. The fundamental personality traits of the person you choose to build a life with are far more important than which set of lift buttons either of you are predisposed to look at. Suite life with a shithead still isn't going to be any fun, whereas you can have lots of fun and meaning with a good person in any circumstances.

Sure. But we don't know exactly what criteria he'd put on joint finances.

This is why I'm asking if she has shown signs of change since the wedding incident. Which is not in terms of paying back the money - it's in terms of paying back the trust.

I married my husband knowing that he was an overworker, and in fact we had a tiff a couple of days before the wedding when we were supposed to leave a couple of hours earlier, but he was finishing up work. And again, on our way to the airport for our honeymoon, he took it to the wire. (In fairness, in both of these incidents, I was overreacting to the cause, and there was no material detriment by taking the extra time).

But then there were a couple of further incidents with holidays, and he was generally strung out/not the man I loved. I made it quite clear to him that our relationship couldn't continue, and I sure as hell wasn't starting a family with him working like that.

And he changed. Formed a plan to get a new job, followed it through, and demonstrated that our shared future and aims were important to him. I had to change too! I have to relinquish the control I always had and share more decisions with him.

Just because we were in a certain position when we married, doesn't mean we had to lump it for life. That's a cop out.

As with so many MN threads, the issue isn't actually whether 1000 randoms think you are BU or not.

Your DH thinks you are. You can't see why. I'm not sure this is something you can resolve or work around long term
Agree with this.

It's irrelevant what any of us think.The person who matters is finding it very difficult being on completely different financial pages from their spouse and has found out that their spouse lies to them about finances.

There's going to have to be a serious discussion about finances, probably with a mediator or therapist to facilitate, or this relationship is going to to end up like many others with financial disagreements: over or continuing with brewing resentment.

She doesn’t need to provide a full financial breakdown. She’s said enough for us to know that she isn’t in any danger of running out of money by doing what she has been.

The OP has said more than enough to know this is much much bigger and ongoing that what she has received in this birthday amount