to expect pil to treat their granddaughters equally

[PrincessScrumpy]

Dd1 is 5 and dtds are 18 months old. Now I know they're too young to notice but dd1 might. Mil messaged dh to say she was sending money for us to buy eggs For dc and a book for dd1 that she knows she wants and a book for dtds. I thought maybe the dtds book cost more than dd1s but it arrived with the invoice and it was a pound cheaper. aibu to be annoyed dtds have to share their book?

DH spoke to mil and mentioned in a jokey voice that we have 3dc and asked if she'd forgotten and since that she is now sending another book but seemed to imply we were demanding gifts for dc which isn't the case. We weren't expecting Easter gifts at all but if she wants to then I feel it should be shared between all 3, one each or at least if dtds have to share the cost should be roughly double dd1s gift.
I know it's sorted now but Aibu to think she shouldn't have created three situation to begin with?

The answer is simple the PIls buy gifts for each child (no special gifts i.e. the book for the eldest), and they spend exactly the same amount on each child.

Of course the OP will have to be prepared for years and years of exactly the same gift.

My understanding from the OP, maybe I am mistaken, but it is that the MIL sent the money and specified what it should be spent on. If the MIL has specified which books to buy and the OP decides to change that so that she can buy three books with the money, it is doing something different to what the MIL asked them to buy with her money. It also doesn't solve the issue of what happens next time.

I wouldn't have gone into the 'twice as expensive' angle, but it doesn't sound as though her DH did that, it is just what the OP has seen and commented on privately.

I know my MIL would've taken umbrage at what you said, but she likes to find offence in anything. I think it's a kind of hobby for her.

I do get your issue about not wanting your DTDs to be The Twins. But perhaps you could've dropped it into conversation, some other time, when it wasn't such a loaded topic. In the meantime, you could've made up the difference by buying another book. Who was to know your MIL hadn't sent it?

The PILs, not just MIL, sent money to buy easter eggs for all three girls.

They also sent two books, which the OP is unhappy with because they have three girls and because the book for the younger girls to share was not twice as expensive as the book for her older girl.

But I'm still not sure who you meant would be ungrateful. The PILs for sending the choosing and sending books, the OP and her DH for asking for a third book, or the OP and her DH for using part of the egg money to buy a third book as well as three cheaper eggs if they had chosen to take that route.

My reading from the OP is that the MIL sent cash to buy specific books and some eggs. The OP could be seen to be ungrateful if she took it upon herself to decide to buy something else with the money that someone had given her to buy specific items. I cannot put it any clearer than that. Whilst using the cash to buy something different this time solves the problem, what about the future? Or is OK to treat the 'twins' as one unit in the future?

I've just used the term MIL as that is what the OP has said.

Whilst I can appreciate the logic of wanting to nip the treatment of the twins as one unit in the bud, I also think that you might be going overboard. Perhaps your in laws (because I think the MIL is getting all the flack here, whereas presumably it was either from both in-laws or PIL didn't actually make ANY effort and has therefore been excused which doesn't seem entirely fair) think that a shared present won't do them any harm at their current age and are planning to make more of an effort when they start to actually 'want' things which they won't want to share.

You are foreseeing an issue which just might not ever occur and as (presumably) intelligent people I don't think you need to 'train' your in-laws to buy three presents, just mention it in the future if it comes up at a time when it actually upsets your daughters rather than now, when it seems you are getting upset on behalf of the girls who have absolutely no idea that all this is going on.

yabvvvu and unbelievably rude. At eighteen months they are going to have the same books read to them anyway, a five year old is at a different level so needs a book suitable to her. The fact that you'd be happy if the twins book was double the price of your elder daughters shows you don't care if they get a present to share, just that they both have the same amount spent on them, the babies won't understand or care so why the big deal?

Your mil sounds lovely and generous, how awful to throw that back in her face. Your children will end up getting no presents from anybody if you continue to display such ingratitude and greed toward the givers. Then you'll be back here complaining that nobody cares, by which stage, they won't.

I don't think you've read it right then Blueberry.

PIL's messaged OP's DH to let them know that the money to buy eggs was on the way and that they were also sending a book for DD1 and one for DTD's.

OP thought that as they were sending one book for the twins to share, it must cost twice as much as the book for DD1.

When the books and the money arrived, the invoice for the cost of the books was included and OP realised that the DTD's book was actually a cheaper book than the one for DD, cheaper by £1.

If the OP and her DH had been sent the money to buy books as well as eggs, they would have known how much each book cost when they ordered them, and so wouldn't have been surprised when the invoice arrived. Also I doubt the PILs would have specified that the money was for just two books and that the one the twins were sharing was to cost £1 less than the book for DD1.

I realise now you were saying that it would be ungrateful to spend the money on a book they hadn't been asked to buy, but that wasn't clear from the bit I quoted and asked you about.

The money was sent to buy eggs. The books were sent by the PILs at the same time as the money.

Perhaps it would have been ungrateful for the OP and her DH to buy an extra book with the egg money, but I still think it would have been less ungrateful of them to say "thank you very much for the books and the money for the eggs, we hope you don't mind but we used part of the money to buy another book so the twins had one each" than to ring and say "have you forgotten we have three children?"

Then at a more appropriate moment they could talk to the PILs about treating the girls as individuals.

The thing is, if PILs had given/suggested two books, is it possible that they thought that would mean that twin two never got to read the story in the first book, and twin one would never read the story in the second book? At the moment, we regard books as always shared here, expressly to avoid that idea developing, as we can neither afford to have two of every book, nor have the room! Perhaps more importantly, the idea of buying a lovely children's book that one child wouldn't be allowed to read would make me cry!

Is it possible that they think that you organise books that way?

Feeling really guilty now - i got my cousin's year 6 twins 1 gift between them for Xmas - a Michael Morpurgo boxed set of books. Didnt intend to make then feel like i saw them as one person - reading this, though, has made me consider how it might, as a twin. OP, i imagine your Meant no harm, so i wouldnt fall out over it.

I think that books are slightly different to other gifts. I have 2 children very close in age and learned quickly to buy them the same toy (one each) because otherwise inevitably one would be considered superior to the other and that seemed such a shame. But I never bought 2 of the same book.

I appreciate that you do need to make the point that twins are 2 separate individuals and would make this point at a time when it is merely a conversation that is being had with PILs. It is not tactful to make this point now.

that is that then...no more gifts.Only birthday and Christmas money....three equal amounts!!

18 month olds can't read. Entirely reasonable to send one book to be read to two children of the same age.

Yabu.

I am a twin and I think you're being really precious. This would not bother me, from the pov of the children or the parents.

I think yabu. I have twin brothers and also my 2 dc are close in age.

My dc are often given things to share and that teaches them to actually share. Your dd2 and dd3 can easily listen to the book together! Your dd1 may be above the book so has her own book. Price irrelevant. Children of that age do not understand relative values of books!

I think that as your mil was kind enough to give an Easter gift, you should not have commented other than to say thank you.

The only time I think you could justifiably be upset is if mil gave them money for savings accounts in this manner - ie £100 for dd1 and £50 each for dd2 and dd3. In that case, it would be reasonable to redistribute the money to give each dd one third of the total.

YABU

My non twin sister and I occasionally got shared gifts because they were things we could easily share and were maybe more expensive than could be afforded just as one present.

She got all three eggs and there was a bonus gift of a book suitable for a 5 year old and a book suitable for 18months. I could understand if it was a toy that only one could play with at a time but you're doing the reading and if one can listen so can the other. Presumably your mum had a budget in mind when buying gifts and this was an efficient use of that money.

Op think yabu and v materialistic. Can't believe you basically let mil know you expected another present, v rude. Presents can be given to share , not just to twins. And you went examining prices of the presents-you sound lovely...

DCs are now 16, 14 and 12. We have a house full of presents bought for the DCs over the years. I can't remember how much any of them cost. I can't remember who most of them were bought by or for.

Forget costs and numbers of gifts sent. It all evens out in the end. Most things get sent to the charity shop in time, or are passed on to friends and family and where anything is treasured by the DCs, the cost and purchaser are usually irrelevant.

YABU, but you won't realise that for a few years yet.

Fakeplastic, that sounds fair enough, you are probably right that it would be a better way to sort it out now, raise it later if required. TBH that is was I have done until now.

YABU. I'd have read this as being more about the dcs ages than the fact one is a single and 2 are twins. I would presume that, if you have a 5yr old, then your house aleady has many books suitable for 18month olds, but fewer books for a 5 yr old. Your MiL asked that each G'child had an egg. As a bonus, she's also bought a couple of books - one suitable for each age group in your house.
Sounds to me like you really are going out of your way to look for problems and be rude to your MiL. If I were here, I wouldn't bother next year.

I understand where you're coming from re the twin thing, I have twins of a similar age too. But they are far too young to notice and PIL may well change their present buying habits once the twins are old enough to realise the significance of 1 present / 2 presents.

YABU to have said anything, given the age of the twins. If it happened when they were older and they were upset by it, then I might have a quiet word but for now, I'd have left it.

I have 4 dc including twin girls and while I totally get your point about twins being treated as individuals I think in this case your mil probably assumed your DTs would both be able to enjoy the same book, the cost of each gift is irrelevant I think.

Grandparents are like parents - they don't always get it completely right all of the time. If it's obvious mil cares about your DCs try and see the bigger picture and cut her some slack.

I think it depends a lot on whether this has happened once or is a general pattern.

MiL often gets my DC gifts. Sometimes she will get more gifts or spend more on 1 child. It wouldn't be uncommon for her to get them (say) a game to share but then get a dress specifically for DD (because she'd happen to see it and liked it).

This doesn't matter because it averages out over time and the DC always get "something".
It's not always sensible to buy everything equal.

Today I have been out to buy DD a smart dress because we have a formal event coming up and she has outgrown everything suitable. I didn't get anything for DS because he has a perfectly good pair of trousers and shirt already. Perhaps I am playing favourites?

I see your point

It's not about cost and I'd imagine you're regretting mentioning that ;)

3 kids = o presents or 3 presents, simple

I could have understood more just the one book actually on the grounds that dd can read but twins too young etc, but to expect them to "share" is unfair, in my opinion, especially as cost isn't the factor.

YANBU and have handled it well. If I was you I'd be concerned this was the start of the twins being treated as a gift unit, so good for you for nipping in the bud.