To want my husband to say something about MIL's comments

I think you can give gifts with strings attached as long as you are clear beforehand. The OP commented that the house that the MIL gave the OPs husband is ringfenced as being her husbands. Thats not unreasonable really. It only matters to the OP if she gets divorced. If I were the MIL I wouldn't want my money to go towards an ex DIL.

@saraclara , you may think this level of gifting is astonishing, but you know nothing of OP and her DH’s family. You don’t know whether the financial support they get even makes a dent in the family wealth.

FWIW, there are lots of families that give away money, houses etc to adult children. They don’t all feel entitled to then rule their lives. You can’t own someone with gifts.

I understand that many posters have not had the good fortune of benefitting from family wealth, and that they see this as an injustice. That feeling is legitimate. But it is not right to tell the OP that she has signed away her life because she married into money. The scorn on this thread is not a good colour.

Exactly this. Saraclara is exactly right. Gifts should not come with strings attached. But they do and that is the reality of this situation and it will not change.

Nothing she says sounds terrible to me. People have different opinions. You can be offended if you want, but it seems like a lot of wasted energy to me.

But I would definitely not accept any financial help from someone I loathed as much as you seem to loathe your MIL. There's something distasteful about accepting lavish gifts while at the same time complaining that she treats you like a child. TBH you have put yourself in the position of a child, since she essentially supports your lifestyle. Be independent. Get a job. Why are you and your husband refusing to stand on your own four feet? It's time to grow up.

Yes, a statement they haven’t pulled out of thin air though, given that it’s their field.

The case that ‘broke’ prenups as valid was in 2010, and just law year there was a further case that solidified their validity:
https://www.allaw.co.uk/do-prenuptial-agreements-hold-up-in-court/

Again, while they are not bulletproof, they certainly have value.

Yes but this is just a statement, it doesn't outline how many times the prenups work.

Because in order for a prenup to be recognized it needs to be done by a solicitor, and a solicitor will make sure it meets the necessary criteria to resist any challenges to it. That isn’t to say it’s bulletproof, but it does mean it is likely to be upheld.

“In the UK, a prenup is not legally binding and there are various caveats. However, UK courts do typically recognise and uphold prenuptial agreements, as long as they meet the qualifying criteria and are fair in all circumstances. It is also possible to get a prenup after you have gotten married, which is call a “postnuptial agreement” and follows the same rules.”

https://www.johnfowlers.co.uk/latest-news/are-prenups-legally-binding-in-the-uk

Where are you getting the idea that they are generally upheld though? Look at the amount of Celebs and high profile people in the media who get stung in divorces. You Can be sure there were prenups set up before those marriages that were over ruled in the divorce.

I’m not saying they’re legally binding. I’m saying they do have value, and are generally upheld. Anyone that has enquired about/used a prenup will be aware of their limitations, and will have been advised to craft it in a way that minimizes the likelihood of it being successfully challenged.

If you have considerable assets then it’s unlikely that you’ll only be using a prenup as a safeguard.

They aren't legally binding in England and Wales and are used at the discretion of the judge. It depends on each individual case too. They are considered in divorces but if you have considerable assets/wealth and are looking at a prenup as a safe haven or as a holy grail then you are out of your mind/deluded as they are far from bullet proof.

Sometimes the wealthy are savvy about this and so have the money/assets in the family's name so that if their son/daughter gets a divorce it's much more difficult for the spouse to walk away with anything in the divorce as it's family money. In other words one can marry into wealth and walk away with bugger all in a divorce and it's all legally above board.

You're paying the price Op. And your husband is more than happy to.

Oh the name comment wasn’t tame btw. Mind you, you both went fairly full throttle with that topic.
I think Arina is a pretty name but it doesn’t have a traditional English feel. Not saying they have to but lots of people ( including my mum and mil) feel more comfortable with something that feels familiar when it comes to their grandchildren. Not saying that’s right, or even that I personally agree, just that amongst my friends parents that wouldn’t be a massively unusual response. A friend called her DS Artie and her mum cried for days that he would be called Farty Artie. So grandparents do give their 50p on naming. It’s not totally weird.

Probably missing the point but this thread has made me so happy that my MIL isn't richer! She's tried pulling the strings over "gifts" with expectations of control in the past but we've had no hesitation in declining the offer and sailing out own ship. Eg when we had an unexpected total car breakdown loss MIL offered to replace it but made it clear she would choose the vehicle etc. Thanks, but no thanks, bank loan for the win. A whole fucking house though? So pleased I haven't had to negotiate that crap!

Sorry but this is in total enabling bullshit behaviour that I wouldn’t be able to bring myself to be a part of. I’d be letting my DH know in no uncertain terms that if his “free will” is so easily purchased and that he can allow his mother to undermine you for the sake of material items; then I’d be moving my stuff into my own house until he grew a backbone. You need to get a job and become financially stable of your own accord. There’s nothing stopping him from upping and leaving you 15/20 years down the line and where will you be then? Happens all the time, you only have to spend 30 seconds on here to discover that. You don’t need masses of money to have a happy and stable life with your children. You already have more than most your age by yourself. Your children need to be able to recognise that your decisions are the word of god and that you won’t be a walk over. If you don’t assert your parental dominance to your MIL along with firm boundaries they will grow up with just as little respect for you as your MIL has and just as fickle and shallow as your husband. I also hope you have a reciprocating prenup with regards to your house as well.

Why doesn’t MIL stay in the kids’ part with the rest of her family, if she doesn’t want to be alone?

Your problem is your DH - he is prioritising his mother's unreasonable demands above your feelings. You need to deal with that first or nothings going to change.

To be honest the comments are pretty tame. I can see you are sensitive to them but involved grandparents do give input. That’s family. I’d try to just see it as the price for having back up in loving and supporting your dcs - and if sounds as if she adds a huge amount to their quality of life. You can’t expect her to act as a mute atm machine.

And for what it’s worth she may have some wisdom: my friends dc fell off a sofa and got quite a nasty head injury so I’m not sure she was totally OTT in worrying about that. I think it’s good your DH respects her and her opinions. The way he treats her will he how he treats you once your boobs are sagging and he can’t get it up much. Life changes and having a DH with basic respect for women is no bad thing.

You ave a dh problem a mummys boy wo does as she wwants

While there are caveats to prenups, they are recognised in the UK, and are usually upheld. It’s a myth that they’re not worth anything.

To the people saying 'stop taking the financial help', that's easy to say but if it were any of us in that situation it becomes much harder to kill a goose that lays an egg. If you had young kids and could stay at home with them rather than go to work then the option would be a no brainer...

Pre nups, even the strongest ones, are never set in stone and a judge is able to reject them. They are not that legally binding.

I don't think that anyone has said that their should be strings attached. But in this case, by accepting such an astonishing level of gifting (a house, cars, holidays and I dare say much more) OP and her husband have walked into this situation. If they'd been independent, made their own way, and lived in a house that they were paying for themselves, the in laws would be less enmeshed with their lives.

It's more that their in-laws don't see them as independent adults, and they should have seen that coming.

lol at the snappy comment re flower names, she deserved that 😁
does your dh go to the no kids part of the holiday place? If so I wouldn’t be going on holiday with his mum again, just say no.

your Dh doesn’t sound like he has much backbone or ability to achieve for himself. He’s tied to mummy’s golden apron strings. I’d be future career planning if I were you to have something apart from dc in your lives in case this all goes tits up (& if it did and the prenup wasn’t generous I’d get a lawyer and challenge it)