It’s an inheritance one!

I think that interpretation is widely disputed. It’s relatively modern.

The mainstream meaning is, as far as I know, very ancient and has deep roots.

There’s a saying “blood is thicker than water” for a reason. Not asking for any moral justification, but that’s just how I’d feel as well and I couldn’t help it.

Interesting fact for you - the full saying is "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". Something like - the bond between two people who choose to be bound together is stronger than two people who happen to be related to each other. The opposite of what people think it means!

Who are you set to get inheritance from? Maybe speak to them about the fact that that sister is donating her money in will to charity! Maybe instead of leaving her and you the money they will skip a generation and leave their money in trust to the children?! (Instead of you and your DS!)
My cousin though has worked hard all her life and is now a millionaire (if you include assets) and she told me she is leaving her property and money to charities rather than to her 2 sisters or 6 nieces and nephews!
Or maybe be upfront with your sister and ask her that if you die early will she consider looking after your children in her will so they’re not completely disadvantaged in life?
Did you receive a life insurance pay out when you were diagnosed? Cleared your mortgage etc? Do you not have life insurance for encase the cancer comes back and takes you before your time?
One of my friends is one of 3 girls… my friend has no children so her parents have told her that they won’t be leaving her anything in their will as they want it to pass to the grandchildren! So her 2 sisters will get everything… silly because if they then die and the husbands meet someone else the kids might still end up with nothing!!

OP is in a scary position and is right to be thinking about finances. I too would expect the majority of family money to stay somewhere within the family. My thoughts on this are a direct result of my upbringing. It sounds like OP’s family are the same, in which case it’s very relevant her parents understand her siblings plan and her situation. At the very least, her ‘share’ should be in trust for her children should she die.
As a family we give generously to, and directly help, charities in our lifetimes but all wealth will be kept in the family or given to very close friends. This is quite normal despite MN’s protestations to the contrary.

I’m on the fence because I could not ever imagine doing this to my nieces and nephews. It’s just not in my nature or how my family culture is. On the other hand, I’m deeply uncomfortable with deciding it’s “family money”. Once a gift has been given, it’s a gift to that person. If you’re that close to your sibling, just…..ask?

I fully understand where the OP is coming from. Psychology is a strange thing. I’d understand if my siblings want to spend all the money on themselves or pass it on to their children (if they have any). Of course my children are not entitled to that.

However, it is personally hurtful to think that if they have any left, it would go complete to someone else and not immediate family members when they might have needs. it’s a tough world out there. There’s a saying “blood is thicker than water” for a reason. Not asking for any moral justification, but that’s just how I’d feel as well and I couldn’t help it.

Best wishes to you.

saraclara, I think your situation sounds very sad. It's not the same as the OP's, this was your grandmother who bypassed your Mum for any help that that money could have provided for you and her.

I really don't know what your grandmother was thinking but I do agree, it was a definite demonstration of active disregard and certainly not love. I'm sorry to read it.

It's a really difficult one! I completely understand where the OP is coming from as I have seen firsthand a wealthier older generation inherit wealth, then tell the next generation not to expect anything. It is unfair not to pay it forward. I also understand it being hurtful for your sibling to give it all to charity when the money could be transformative for your children.

BUT- I would try to out those feelings aside and accept that your sibling doesn't have any responsibility towards your children. If your sibling had children, then they would inherit from them. They didn't- but that doesn't give your children an entitlement to that inherit either.

Life is also too short to dwell on inheritances and nothing good will come of it.

So if the OPs children want to spend the money they inherit on education, cars, holidays, medical needs etc will they be stopped because its family money and it has to stay available for the future family pot?

Are the childfree allowed to pay for private carers, supported living costs etc, or do they have to guarantee they will will stay healthy until then end so as not to deplete the "family pot"

But that's such a random, arbitrary rule. Why 10%? Why not 100% to family if you think that's the most important? Or why not a considered amount based on who needs it most if you think that giving to charity is OK?

i think family money should stay in the family of course give at least 10% to charity, but rest to family.

I'm a trustee of a charity and I'm sorry but that's bollocks.

The only charity CEOs that earn vast amounts are those running international charities that handle hundreds of millions of pounds. And you have to be an exceptionally experienced and able business person to effectively lead a charity like that.

The CEO of our organisation earns less than she could earn in the private sector, as do the vast majority. And her skills and ability are vital for our funds, our staff and our volunteers to be used wisely, and for those who our service helps, to benefit as much as possible, whole also being safeguarded.

You simply cannot have a charity with a million/millions of pounds budget, run by a volunteer. Your funding doesn't line pockets. Someone is paid a salary to run it, and your donation doesn't affect that or line their pocket any further.

By the way, trustees are NOT paid. We oversee the governance of the charity as volunteers. We all have vast experience as professionals in other areas that we bring to support our CEO and ensure that the charity is run properly.

@Hihellogoodbye Thats not strictly true. Yes, heads of charities are on good money, but if they didn’t pay market rate, you wouldn’t get experienced people running these charities. Someone is not going to voluntarily earn £50 000 to run Oxfam if they can get £100 000 to run Man City football club. Charities are charities, but also are businesses that employ people. Would you run Oxfam, or whoever, for minimum wage?

Giving money to charity would only thicken the Director’s pockets. Very little money actually goes to the good cause they are supposedly working for.
The heads of charities are on such good money that is unbelievable and the people that actually raise the funds are volunteers. It’s so hypocritical!
I don’t ever donate to charity instead I give directly to families in need.
I agree with you OP! If he wishes to donate that’s his business but don’t give everything to charity- it will go in some strangers pockets.

The OP already answered this. (In case you don't want to read the thread, yes, her brother is the person who will care for her children if both her and her DH pass away.

It’s up to your sister what she does with her inheritance, but for a start she hasn’t said what she will do whilst she’s alive! My bro have me £5k towards buying my flat… she might do similar in a similar way to how family members have helped her.

it definitely sounds like you are concerned about what happens if you are not here, you should do what you can within your own control to reduce those concerns (possibly including being optimistic about a life after cancer if you can).

also, your mum & dad have a pretty rubbish will if it’s either 50/50 to you & your sister, but if one of you passes away, 100% goes to the other. Since you do have children I would expect it to day the estate should be split evenly between sister 1 & sister 2, or between the dependents if sister 1 & sister 2 or something. You could ask your parents to give you piece of mind & change the will so it states 25% to each of your kids & none to you due to tiur own health worries without having to discuss your sister with them, it’s then up to them if h th at is something they are willing to do.

This only applies if you view someone’s disposal of their assets as the sole measure of their love/care. I don’t believe this to be the only measure, hence it didn’t cause me any upset when I discovered my parents’ wills favoured one sibling over the rest of us. I viewed it as their decision entirety and their right to make that decision. (Plus I knew enough to know this sibling certainly wasn’t their favourite one but that’s another day’s discussion 😀)

Only on Mumsnet. In the real world people would be aghast at the idea of lecturing childfree people about how leaving money to charity was selfish and worthless (Im not referring to the OP here but other commenters on the thread)

Only on Mumsnet. In the real world, people would be aghast at not passing on to potentially motherless nieces and nephews in favour of a charity. Good luck OP, I hope your parents bequeath to your children if it doesn’t make it to you first, but I hope it does.

My grandmother left all her money and her home to a charity that she didn't even care about. Not a penny to my mum, her only daughter, who had cared for her in her old age.

It wasn't really about the money. Mum was doing fine without it. It was the message it gave my mum. My grandmother wasn't a warm person and I never saw any sign of love from her to my mum, and my mum knew that.

After Grandma died and she was told what was written in the will, my mum said "it's true then. She didn't love me.

So yes, she felt sad. And I did too. Because she didn't leave any to me or my brother either. So presumably we weren't important to her either.

Had it been a charity really close to her heart it would have been different. But it wasn't. Nor had she ever been bothered about any charitable giving.

So I get the sadness. Clearly there's more to OP 's resentment, but in her place I'd feel sad that the sibling cares so little for their niece/nephew that it doesn't cross their mind to leave then anything at all.

This ^

Think about what you want for your children and talk to your sister, or friends/wider family, in order to make plans that reassure you that you’ve done all you can to keep them safe.

You are right on account of not thinking this way for selfish reasons. Especially re your potential health. Going forward in todays financial world, ie 45 years of neoliberal economics and politics, the only children that will have their own house will be those with massive financial help. The correlation between working and saving to set yourself up for life has been broken in the last 2 decades for many people, especially in the SE of the UK.

This. There is no way I'd leave money to charity over my nieces and nephews or other family (unless I didn't like them). I would also be sad at this decision.

I think it's interesting that you recognise on one level that you (and your sibling) have been in a privileged position to inherit from family. However, when it comes to your dc, you seem to view it as a right rather than a privilege.

All this talk about a "family pot" is encouraging you to frame this issue in completely the wrong way. The reality is, there is no "family pot" as such... you make out as if your sibling has somehow taken out of a shared family pot and failed to pay back in as expected, but the reality of the situation is that any money left to them by other relatives was left to them as an individual, for them to spend/bequeath as they wish. Yes, some of your other family members have chosen to pass stuff on within the family, and it's lovely that you and your sibling have benefitted from that, but that was a personal choice on the part of the person leaving the money. Unless they have left it with specific strings/ conditions attached, it doesn't create any obligation whatsoever on your sibling to do the same. And if your sibling chooses not to pass on the privilege of inheritance to your children, but rather to redistribute that wealth via a charity to others who may be less privileged, then that is entirely their prerogative. The money is theirs...it isn't coming from a "family pot" that rightfully belongs to your children, regardless of where it originally came from.

I understand your fears for your children's future, given your circumstances, but you're making yourself feel unnecessarily resentful about something that you sibling might view in a very different light. It isn't worth losing a good relationship over.

I think I’d talk to your sibling. Ask them gently if anything were to happen to you, would they be prepared to help your children with moral/financial support. Or if not them, who?