AIBU to resent my husband's generosity to his daughter but not mine?

She has at least £1500 coming in each month without including her salary. She could afford to buy her daughter a decent dress from 1 or 2 months of her rental income.
why should her husband give her daughter what she is choosing not to give?

If you’d bothered to even just read the OP’s posts (not even the full thread), you’d know this.

He'd be massively better off financially if he did, so I imagine he'd be fine with it, if a little perplexed at why OP would want to disadvantage herself that way.

So if the situation was reversed, and you'd decided to move into your mortgage free house and he was renting his out would he be prepared to pay all the bills?

What about food and other consumables? Are the costs of those costs shared?

At which point the op would have to pay MORE!!!

You may be on to something here.

Perhaps the 'things' which OP spends her entire income on (leaving her with nothing to spend on her dd's wedding) are self-care, gym, clothes and beauty treatments to keep herself looking good.

It could be that the deal is so long as OP keeps herself in good shape, her dh will look after her financially, hence she does not need to save. She thinks it is understood he will also picks up the bulk of the expenses (no she does not pay all the bills) and any extras because he is Mr Moneybags.

Except that there is a limit ...

Alternatively, OP is just not very good with money.

Reading this thread is bonkers, where does the excess rental income and salary go. It kept swinging from I can't afford to pay towards a wedding to the sharing of bills is fair and there's an excess.

“I pay all the bills” was a lie. She doesn’t. he contributes more towards their joint life than she does.

Op has two good incomes and little in the way of outgoings. She’s perfectly capable of saving if she wanted to. That she doesn’t want to, doesn’t oblige her husband to cover the responsibilities she does have.

Looks to me like the OP and her ex husband are a pair of grifters!

No. it;s because she appears to spend all of her salary and rental income remaining after paying SOME of the bills on herself.
Why should she and her ex husband pay towards their OWN DD wedding when her new DH of two years is loaded. He should pay for their daughter's wedding.
It's only fair after all!

Did you marry him just because of his money op?

i think this does make a difference. If a trade has taken place - ie youth/beauty for money - then it does alter things.

Of course OP can afford a wedding dress for her daughter. She has a good income and excess rental income to play with.

Her daughter can buy a decent wedding dress for less than £100 off the shelf. There is no reason why her daughter or OP cannot afford a wedding dress.

The problem is OP and her daughter want a cheaper but equivalent wedding dress to the custom made one in the 15-20k range he is buying for his own daughter, simply because he can afford it. OP can afford it except she seems to have frittered away her excess income on unknown 'things'. That is greed and entitlement.

The decent thing to do would be for all income, ie both salaries and the rent, to go into a joint account and then all spending on bills and luxuries to come from that account. He probably won't agree to it as his kids benefit more than yours from the current arrangement. I find it sad that he gets to use his higher salary to help his kids rather than seeing it as joint income so I totally see why you are upset. I don't think I could find your husband attractive in your position.

Depends on why she can't afford them as well. Isn't to do with paying bills or having no income

He has absolutely no obligation to pay anything towards your children. However, you don't sound like you're in loving partnership. I can't imagine not wanting to contribute to things my partner can't afford (like a wedding dres or present), if I was able, and it made them happy.

Why did you get married OP? Your lives sound quite separate.

So do bitter and envious but as you know that was not the point,

Lie is by far the least likely interpretation.

As I explained the cost of the service charge is entirely dependent on the type of fiat. A large conversion flat in a house with no lift and no grounds in an expensive area of London would be minimal compared to a mansion flat in a purpose built block with lifts and large grounds, even in a much less expensive area. The former has much less in the way of services to charge.

OP has said since the start she has a good deal, so that’s hardly revolutionary

Sounds as though he is loaded to me.
What's his problem?

This - l don't understand OP, you must have a substantial amount of money left every month, why have you not been saving for your DD's wedding instead of asking your DH to help.

I wouldn’t advise any of my children to hitch up to anyone with wealth, spoils everything, of course they don’t won’t to build a life together with you, relationship dominated by mistrust etc, changes everything

Yes, lie has a number of synonyms.

He’s a wealthy man living in central London. He’s almost certainly not paying the lowest price when it comes to the service charge.

OP has a very good deal here, and she knows it.

He's wealthy. That's was probably a major factor in OP's decision to marry him!

£11,000 on a watch!!!

I didn’t say she wasn’t. But she will owe CGT if she wanted to sell whereas he will not.

She's still getting capital growth on her property also though

There’s no should about it, it depends on things like income, investments, savings, pension etc.

Of course he makes a return on the money invested in his flat - capital growth.