It's another inheritance one...

Right so now we have to worry about 2 people who cannot leave nor inherit money… not the people who are actually here to leave and inherit. If I pre deceased my husband he wouldn’t ’inherit’ anything from me he would just retain what we built together… and if I didn’t trust him to allocate things as he saw fit I wouldn’t have married him. Bizarre take

My uncle died before my paternal grandparents and his portion of the estate was given to his son.

Alternatively, my DSS' mum died of cancer when he was 11 and she (and my DSS) were written out of his grandmother's will when it was discovered she was terminally ill. Which is just hideous IMO.

My maternal grandparents died recently and the estate was split amongst their 3 children. My mum split her share amongst my kids (her only grandchildren) as a living inheritance. My stepson is included in that split. He is closer to my mum than he is his maternal family which is very sad, we have tried to maintain it but he's an adult now and we cant force it.

There is no "should" about it. People are entitled to leave their money to whoever they want to, the idea that family are already arguing over someone's will while they are still alive is disgusting. If I heard of family members (I don't have any, fortunately) complaining about what they were getting they would find me heading to the solicitor to change my will asap.

So you did it right, well done you. Not everyone has your prescience or the money to invest, I certainly didnt. Punching down may make you feel good but it makes you look bad.

I know, but although they were taken out back then ,it could be years before people actually cancelled their policy as most had a life insurance policy attached and there wasn't a lot of alternative options unless you had a good sum of money to buy a rental or business.

All relative. My parents died when I was very young and had no material or financial assets to leave. Wonderful parents who left me with memories, irrespective of financial circumstances.
Yes, money brings out the worst in people. What is seen as fair to some will be seen as unfair by another.

That is quite a leap - resurrecting a long dead father of a long dead daughter and projecting your opinions on them! He could equally have abandoned them at an early age and the house been paid for by the DM!

There is somebody else to be considered in this scenario. Mary’s late husband and how he may feel about the situation. Presumably Mary inherited half of the house and other things from him.
Jane may be the only daughter Mary is concerned about but surely the ex husband was concerned about both daughters.

The money grabbers if they objected would be the four financially secure adults, who rarely see their DGM whining about a “mere” 12.5% of the estate at the expense of their financially struggling aunt/DM who has provided the care and support for the DGM.

That is the definition of entitlement. Nobody is being “penalised” - all the DGC are being treated the same.

That's 30 to 40 years ago. 'Jane' is only in her 60's, she will have had 30 to 40 years to think about her pension. There may be a perfectly good reason why she doesn't have a pension but that isn't it.

The OP seems to have disappeared so this was probably all made up/AI/click bait stuff anyway.

I lost my daughter in 2023, she had 2 daughters.. I have two other children. Me and husband have left a will splitting it 3 ways. so my 2 grandaughters get a third between them. I think it's the fairest thing to do. It's bad enough they lost their mum without them being penalised further. Some people are such money grabbers!

I imagine the thinking is as follows:

Jane will use up the 50% she gets living the remainder of her life (frugally or otherwise) and have next to zero to pass on to her DC.

All GC will then get 12.5% on Mary's death and are thus treated fairly.

Seems fair to me and probably fairly efficient tax-wise.

If Jane does have a large surplus then I'm sure she'll give Sarah's DC some of it in her will.

I am presuming this inheritance is not £millions.

Standard on MN where the sense of entitlement over inheritance is often staggering and you can see exactly the kind of families where this feuding happens. Not something I’ve seen so much in RL.

There is no right to an inheritance. If all in the family are financially secure and relationships are similar then fine - split it evenly. However if one of my children were in need and the others were not I would want to help that child. Especially if that child was also the one providing all the help and support. Why on earth would I prioritise DGC who I scarcely saw and who were secure financially?

Lucky old you - @PyongyangKipperbang is spot on and I would add that for many such women there was no access to company pension schemes (either due to lower grades or part time status), “managing out” for maternity was even more widespread than now and sex discrimination was the norm in most jobs, especially when it came to promotions. The idea that legislative changes made material change to the job market in this age group's peak earning years is for the birds. Especially for the 95% of women who did not have access to higher education (paid or free).

As other PP point out - many of the private schemes which became available in the 80s and 90s performed shockingly. If you remember the importance of a private pension you presumably also remember the multiple mis-selling scandals both on pensions and endowment policies through this period which left people struggling to pay their bills.

Interesting that PPs think SAHMs and part timers should be punished financially as not contributing. The patriarchy is alive and well when it comes to women’s unpaid labour.

I agree with the OP - the occasional contact DGC have no right to anything. I would prioritise the child who is in need now and who has a poor financial outlook (whilst aiding me considerably) and leave small gifts to the DGC. Jane will need the money in old age, the DGC who are financially secure have more time to sort themselves out. Plus of course they all have paternal grandparents who may be better placed financially.

I would not have wanted one of my parents to go short in order to benefit my financially secure self. A gift would be nice, more than that for the DGC is only appropriate where the DC are secure and don’t need the money.

♥️ that is fair.

It is standard for children to inherit their deceased parent's share so that is probably why the children are aware and expecting it. We don't know how big Mary's estate will be anyway. May end up with very little anyway.

Another pov is Jane lost her only sibling. Who knows how hard that was for her. Maybe she stepped in and did a lot of childcare for Sarah's children which would have been quite likely if she was a SAHM.

In the "being fair on Janes kids"... Its not Sarah's kids fault (unless a big drip feed that Jane gave up work to bring them up or something) that Jane hasn't made better pension provision.

I've changed my mind throughout reading this thread, and I think what the actual problem is is a lack of communication, not whether its 10% or 15% here or there, its explaining things. My dad died before my nan, we inherited his "share" (not a lot). I would have been heartbroken to have been cut out of the will though, like we meant nothing to my nan without my dad being alive? With a bit of communication- you can see it in a very different light. Why we British are so decretive and cagey about money I do not know.

Unfortunately a lot of the insurance schemes that were sold in the 80s and early 90s were not very good, and many folded due to underperformance. Finance investment companies went bust. Most were based on the high interest rates and when interest rates fell it was a disaster. Hopefully the schemes around now are more realistic and the next generations don't get left highland dry.

Yes, and very hard to know everything about the family. Is Jane a widow? Does she have health problems, is she on a 2nd marriage and 2nd husband likely to inherit her half, does Jane do a lot of care for Mary, or will in future. Mary has probably factored in everything she knows to make her choice.

Her children are not entitled in the same way though, just like any gc whose parent is still alive. Sarah's children are as their mother is dead.
That's going by the law if Mary didn't have a will.

She said Sarah's husband would get something so if he got equal share it would be. Wasca bit vague on what he was getting.

Actually... if the GK are the ones kicking off... then they have no right to assume they were getting ANY kind of inheritance.
My parents have split everything between me and my brother.
Anything we decide to give our own children will come out of our share.

Yes it is.
The daughters ( Jane/Sarah) get their equal share and divide it out (or spend it all themselves)
As Sarah is RIP her share goes to her children.

Why doesn’t Jane have a pension???

if my sister died I would be mortified if my mums will then gave me money to live off over my nieces and nephews.