One child has inherited AGAIN

Just saying this is "normal in a modern blended family" is ignoring that circumstances vary hugely between families- just because you think it is fair in your situation does not translate to others.
I was directly addressing the OP's situation rather than spouting general aphorisms.

Yep! You don’t pick your parents

They are half brothers.

Lottery winners have siblings, no real difference.

First of all, I understand why you are upset as nobody likes to see big differences being made between their children.

So I am going to try and give a view in the hope it helps you process and deal with this:

1. you can only deal with what is in your control ie you can’t change what has been given to DS2 or even DH view. The only person that could do something here is DS2 and his age and own views are unknown.
2. most people do not inherit anything meaningful, so DS2 is not at a disadvantage from most other people ie in his peer group.
3. even if DH agreed to a different split in your will, is it not likely to be a very long time before they might inherit - circumstances could be very different by then and treating your two children unequally feels dangerous.
4. is it the house deposit thats bothering you most? In which case could you and DH support money now to DH1 on basis of keeping boys the same in terms of enabling a house deposit?
5. I wouldn’t tell DS1 abt DS2 inheritance if they don’t know, and if you help DS1 now, I wouldn’t tell DS2 - feels unnecessary

Honestly dont over think it, DS2 could have had a big win on the lottery and therefore have a very different life, you haven’t caused or enabled any of this.

That two brothers could be so financially different by inheritance it’s unfair but in modern day families it’ll become more norm than not I’d think.

😂

Just when I thought this thread couldn’t get more complex 😳 If this is an ongoing saga, we just got to the ‘surreal distraction’ section. Ding ding 🛎…time for the next round? Roll up, roll up…

Subject: Unfair Distribution of a Financial Legacy: A Modern, Multigenerational Approach, with Particular Emphasis on Biological Determinism and the Gender Dialectic

Ready, steady…go? 😁

we live in hope 😂

🏳️

But OP may choose to justify or criticise the decision to leave the money to nephews only. We are not privy to uncle’s motivations. I think he was sexist but l but I don’t know this. I guess I could have used justify or criticise, but I didn’t think anyone would be pedantic enough to decide what OP’s view should be and the terms she should use to discuss it here.

It's not pedantic to point out that you used terminology that meant something completely different. It's also not pedantic to be critical of OP not pointing out the sexism. By all means disapprove of me and others doing that, but it's not pedantry.

I think you were disingenuous because rather than answer the point about sexism, you fixated on the terms justify vs criticise.

Again, you wrote something completely different to what you meant. It's not pedantry to point that out. The multiple mentions of OP not having been involved with the will, which we all know, suggests a lack of understanding or even, dare one say it, a fixation here.

Of course the uncle was criticised by posters. What you were doing was holding OP to higher standards by complaining she hasn’t rejected the sexism displayed by her H’s uncle. Even though it was nothing to do with her.

Higher standards than who, and how? If you're setting up a comparison, it needs to be done clearly. Show evidence based on what's already been written. Her stance on the will is literally everything to do with her, btw. It's one of the few things here she's in total control of.

Someone wave the white flag pleeeese!!

Justify means to give or be a good reason for. When I said it was interesting that OP hadn't criticised the sexism, you said that would be requiring a woman to justify a man's decision. When actually, it was about OP doing the opposite of that. This is something you got wrong right at the start, and your subsequent mistakes flowed from there.

But OP may choose to justify or criticise the decision to leave the money to nephews only. We are not privy to uncle’s motivations. I think he was sexist but l but I don’t know this. I guess I could have used justify or criticise, but I didn’t think anyone would be pedantic enough to decide what OP’s view should be and the terms she should use to discuss it here.

You then said pointing this error out to you was disingenuous. That means slightly dishonest. It's obviously not dishonest to rely on the dictionary definition of a word someone else picked. What dictionaries say is a fact.

I think you were disingenuous because rather than answer the point about sexism, you fixated on the terms justify vs criticise.

These incorrect conclusions led you to make a claim about sexism, which generally means treating women worse than men in some way (some argue it can work both ways too, but we don't need to consider that here). Your basis for the claim was an incorrect belief that a higher standard is being expected from the woman than the man. This clearly isn't true because there've been multiple criticisms of the man already, more than of OP on that specific point. It's simply wrong.

Of course the uncle was criticised by posters. What you were doing was holding OP to higher standards by complaining she hasn’t rejected the sexism displayed by her H’s uncle. Even though it was nothing to do with her.

I've used the Cambridge definitions here for ease, but if you have a strong preference for another we can be flexible.

Justify means to give or be a good reason for. When I said it was interesting that OP hadn't criticised the sexism, you said that would be requiring a woman to justify a man's decision. When actually, it was about OP doing the opposite of that. This is something you got wrong right at the start, and your subsequent mistakes flowed from there.

You then said pointing this error out to you was disingenuous. That means slightly dishonest. It's obviously not dishonest to rely on the dictionary definition of a word someone else picked. What dictionaries say is a fact.

You then felt the need to point out that she had no input into the uncle's will, which I suppose is at least right, but irrelevant. Nobody thinks she did. It was a strawman.

These incorrect conclusions led you to make a claim about sexism, which generally means treating women worse than men in some way (some argue it can work both ways too, but we don't need to consider that here). Your basis for the claim was an incorrect belief that a higher standard is being expected from the woman than the man. This clearly isn't true because there've been multiple criticisms of the man already, more than of OP on that specific point. It's simply wrong.

Which terms have been misused?

I think you don’t like being called on your sexism, whether it’s conscious or unconscious.

You don't understand the terms you're using. That's not going away. Words have meanings (misplaced is another one) and they aren't just things to fire out because you saw something you didn't like.

The more you post the more your attitudes and behaviours are revealed. Your imaginary corrections and your misplaced sense of superiority are apparent for all to see.

More like.

Recognizing and pointing out that this situation has occurred because of choices OP made is not ‘blaming’ her. She did nothing wrong there. Where she went wrong was in refusing to accept reality, expecting her in laws to provide her son with what she wanted him to have, and trying to force them to.

Correcting you is not attacking you.

You have used multiple words wrongly, and now resorted to outright invention. I've criticised the late uncle multiple times on this thread. You just saw something you didn't like and decided to wade in without thinking or checking.

Maybe have a think about your own instincts and motivations, that are leading you to continue digging this hole.

Instead of attacking people for pointing out your sexism, perhaps consider your own instincts and motivations and why you expect more from OP who is a woman, than the man who actually wrote the sexist will.

You don't appear to understand the meaning of the words you're throwing about here. Thus far we've had incorrect usage of requiring, justifying, disingenuous and sexism. One wonders what you're going to come up with next in order to avoid admitting that you're wrong.

When someone is continuously fighting a losing battle, and actively making their situation and that of their child worse, then yes, winding their neck in is probably a wise of course of action.

The two siblings have different realities that reflect their different family relationships. That’s a choice OP made for them. If she didn’t like it then it was on her to leave, not try and force those around her to give her what she wanted. The MIL and the uncle neither created this problem, nor were obliged to solve it.

And no, he isn’t ‘their’ child - he’s the child of his mother and father (the latter of which was and is active in his life, incidentally).

As far as the males - only will goes, that was his money and his business 🤷🏻‍♀️ no one has been denied anything rightfully theirs.

💯

This is Mumsnet, women are still allowed to express their own upset at their children getting such different outcomes in life; without being jumped on or blamed.

You’re criticising OP for not criticising a man’s decision she had nothing to do with. That is inherently sexist. The rest of your post is waffle.

It's not disingenuous to correct you when you're wrong.

What's being commented on is a decision OP had full input into, which is her post on the the will. Nobody thinks OP had any control over the will itself, so that's a strawman. It might be sexist if DP came on here, also ignored that and people didn't point out or justified what he was doing whilst not doing the same for OP. That isn't what happened.