I had a long marriage during which we lived well, but well within our means. We had holidays we loved but not long haul, we ate out somewhere really nice a handful of times a year, not every weekend, we had newish well maintained cars, but nothing fancy. We could have spent more on these kinds of things but enjoyed building security more than we wanted them iyswim.
Fwiw, I always earned at least as much as DH, once DC were out of primary school, more than he did, and I always managed the money and investments.
He died when DC were just adults, leaving me a relatively young widow, needing to build a new life.
As often seems to be the case this also meant new friends, as old ones seemed to drift away once I was no longer part of a couple.
I joined groups and took up hobbies and now have a happy active life involving lots of travel with friends. None of it is big expensive trips, but it is very regular, much more than I ever did with DH, at least in part because with him we were happy at home and didn't especially feel the need to go away.
Anyway, I'm living well, spending my own money, which I earn. I'm not saving much it's true, and I have the nest egg built with DH, which gives me some security, but day to day I am living off my own income.
I have recently heard a couple of remarks about "it being OK with a widows pension and life insurance".
I don't have a widows pension and the life insurance has been put by for when DC are ready to buy houses, but if I did, surely it would be mine to spend?
What's really annoying me is the assumption that I'm not supporting myself. That our previous lifestyle was all down to DH's income. It's just so sexist. DH earned well enough, but my comfortable position now is much more down to the way I managed money than him. (And the fact that we married young and stayed married, definitely had a positive impact on our joint finances).
Still, I need to let them think what they like, rather than try and set the record straight, don't I?