Inheritance - has something shifted?

but wouldn't it still form part of the marital pot upon divorce?

Again, their money their choice.
Which is why I always say - allow your partners to show up for their family in a way they feel comfortable, and you do for yours what you are comfortable with. If they look like a selfish arse, maybe they are.

from your post I assumed that they were seeking to ensure that of their son inherits / receives any benefits from the family trust then he dies, his interest in the trust goes straight to his children / their grandchildren rather than passing to you as his spouse.

I can understand this. If your DH inherited from them, then died, the standard couple will would leave it all to you. And you are free to do what you want with ‘their’ money, including marrying again and leaving it all to your new husband 🤷‍♀️

But again, this is completely normal. It would be very unusual to include in-laws in a family trust. There could also be tax implications of them leaving money to op (for example, the main residence nil rate band is only for direct descendants, not spouses).

The problem seems to be OP taking on responsibility for her in-laws when her husband should be doing it, not them leaving the money to him. Right or wrong, the usual convention is to leave your money to your descendants not according to merit.

I think there's a lot of nuance being lost on this thread about the symbolism of how inheritance is set out.

I don't think the OP is saying that it isn't her ILs choice or that she was expecting a windfall.

It sounds to me like she thought she was close to her ILs and was an active engaged member of their family, including taking responsibility for their care needs, and that in that context it has surprised and hurt her the lengths they have gone to in order to make sure that in no circumstances does she ever get a penny of their money. I don't think it's the money per se that hurts - its that when she felt she was close to them, they have set up arrangements that make it clear she's an outsider who can't be trusted.

I think people are being more cautious. They want their money to go to their son and other blood relatives. Ring fencing it in this way is a smart thing to do imo.

my MIL had nothing to leave (and she was a horrible old cow who i hated) but she once said to me that it was my duty to do all the things for her in the same way as her daughters did.

And i asked her, as a joke, what she'd leave me for that and she went off on one about how it was my job and DH is far too special. So i never went to see her again and certainly didn't lift a finger when she needed something that was in my set of skills. so meh.

@NepoInlaw it was ever thus, ime.

Should your in-laws children die before they inherit, their share will automatically go to the children of their sons/daughter (if dec'd)

No matter what you do/or how much you do for them @NepoInlaw, you are not blood.

At least, now you know how they're thinking and can make any adjustments should you wish.

I do totally understand where you're coming from though.

Not clear what your relationship is.

In Law? Widowed ex in law?

Keeping most of it in the blood line is fairly common.

However if you've done stuff for them down the years and the estate is big enough a pecuniary legacy of £10k or so would be a gesture.

It does sound horrible to exclude non-blood relatives when you've been married for decades. Act accordingly.

I'm interested to know why you've done all the present buying and heavy lifting for your husband's family. Presumably, he does all that for your side of the family. That sounds like a really strange way of doing things, surely you'd sort out your family and your husband would sort out his?

I think the thing that has changed is the amount of money passed down. We now (sadly) live in an inheritocracy. How much you might inherit is now perhaps the biggest factor in your life chances, more significant than how hard you work or education level.

I would not expect to inherit from in laws, I can't imagine anyone would?
In fact all our in-laws and parents are dead. DH and his brother shared the small amount from their parents. I benefited because we don't have his and her money. Our DC benefited because we gave them some.
My sister and I inherited from mum. She left a small amount to grandchildren and we varied the will to increase it. DH benefited from my share.
None of the above were large sums.

I sort of understand OP but really it's pretty normal for just the bloodline to inherit, it's just not called out officially like this. Then "the bloodline" shares as they wish with their own spouse/family.

My MIL was annoyed when she was removed from her MIL's (GM) will when GM's other child's partner died...she didn't think it was fair for MIL to inherit when her 2nd child now didn't have a partner to inherit as well, so she changed it to be split just between her 2 children. To me, that's the norm anyway!!

I don't think it is that the op isn't directly left anything, it is rather that there are a huge number of increasingly unlikely provisos in the trust to exclude her so:

1. inheritance to DH, but
2. if DH dies before his parents, everything to the grandchildren until they're 25, but
3. if DH and the grandchildren all die before inheriting, any great-grandchildren but
4. if DH and the grandchildren are all dead and there aren't any grandchildren, inheritance goes to X (other person) and follows the same trail down.

Unless this is multimillions of generational family wealth, it is all a bit pointless.

I do lots for my in laws but I fully expect them to leave any inheritance to my DH. I would only leave mine to my DC- not their partners when they get to that stage. Having said that I would expect my husband to use any inheritance towards the family unit, not go and blow it on himself.

presumably it is also completely normal for the DIL not the blood relatives to do all their presents and running around too?

as pp said, it isn't (or sholdn't be) transactional or conditional. But it is beyond crass to watch your DIL do all the things for you then make a statement like this.

OP, just stop it all. Let their blood relatives pick up the slack.

My PILs left everything to my DH and my DD, I didn't expect anything although like you most of the family gatherings over the years, 'looking after', and arranging things was left to me to sort out. I was slightly peeved that my DH didn't offer me a small share or at least buy something nice, not that I did (or would have) asked for anything. You are their son's wife so presumably you benefit indirectly or is it all going straight to GCs?

Pure speculation but I wonder if higher value estates are more common with house price rises meaning they feel more responsibility to safeguard family wealth? And the knock on effect that inheritance is now a huge factor in whether children/grandchildren can buy a home of their own so its critical to the next generation's prospects.

Family breakdown and blended families are so common now which has complicated passing down generational wealth and perhaps they have seen consequences in their friends families and children?

Better access to advice, with the internet people more aware of trust options that in the past only certain groups with lawyers and accountants would have known about.

I wouldn't even contemplate being left anything in my in-laws wills. Is that a done thing now?

Same as I would have thought it very inappropriate and wrong if my sister in law had become a beneficiary of my parents' wills.

I have a view on his having thought about it a lot 😂

I think if you go back to to the last generation- the “silent generation” or the “great generation” “normal” people rarely had an inheritance to pass down. It wasn’t expected, it was fairly restricted to farming and aristocratic families.

with the baby boomers, the biggest transfer of wealth in history, suddenly normal people had a valuable asset- their home. Many normal people had even more wealth than this. I think they have become giddy with it, going from pride at being able to leave inheritances for the first time in their families, to as they get older and more used to the idea, using it to control the future. This is often because in any generation there are narcissistic and controlling people, and often because as it gets closer to actually happening, there’s a panic about their “hard work” being wasted.

It's not just about divorce. It also protects their money if your husband died.

There have been lots of cases where people end up with family money being left to someone unrelated.

It can happen where someone remarries after their spouse dies, then they die. The New husband/wife leaves everything to their kids.

This. I would be amazed if I was in their will.

Their money they can do with it whatever they wish.

I think what has shifted is people's attitude towards marriage. A married couple were once seen as a unit. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I wonder how they would have felt if there had been such conditions attached to any of their inheritences? If blood is what is important to them they won't need you, so I would be taking a step back. Personally I would take it as an insult not only to me but my marriage.

This link wasn't the scheme I saw in person but perhaps an example of the problems that can result - https://www.heir-tight-wills.co.uk/2023/05/03/resolving-the-issue-of-asset-protection-trusts-sold-to-protect-your-home-from-care-fees/

The tax implications can be significant, depending on asset size, types of assets held, family strucutres and other dimensions.