To think that family heirlooms should stay in the family?

[siwsan]

My husband’s family were historically middle class, think merchants and lawyers etc. As such, there used to be a fair amount of expensive 18th and 19th century silver, and fine jewellery. Think multiple rings worth upwards of £5k a pop.

My husband has one sister, and she has been given all of the family jewellery. She lives abroad and has one son. when she got married she changed her surname to her husband’s, who is very well to do.

Her son (my nephew) is about to get married, and dsis in law announced that any family jewellery would go to the new member of the family as a gift. What if they divorce?

AIBU to think that the family heirlooms should stay in the ‘direct’ line of the family rather than start branching out. My daughter has kept our surname when she got married, and knows that if she and her husband ever divorced, that his family furniture would go back with him.

I have American friends who have inherited jewelry which follows the female line for this reason. After our mother died I didn’t give my brothers wife any of her jewelry. They are now divorced. I will give my niece some.

If they have multiple rings worth that they can afford the risk. Rather than 'well this won't last'.Plus it would then go to any descents of that married couple so still in the family.

It's just 'stuff'. Old stuff.

Divorce and families spliting can be devastating. Bringing 'stuff' into it is tacky.

Let people do what they want with 'stuff'.

Not really your business is it.

If the jewellery had sentimental value, like the engagement ring of a beloved grandma etc, then I would say you had a point.

Your OP just sounds grabby though, all focus on the money value.

It feels rather sad that you are thinking about this couples divorce before they are even married. If they did split maybe she would give it back. If they have children then it is likely it will stay in the family, the surname does not make them any less family members.

The sense of entitlement to other people’s money and belongings never ceases to amaze me. What an awful way to live.

I think the sentimental value lies in the fact its been in the family for generations, it has history
The monetary value would be irrelevant to me

How wonderful of your sil to welcome her dil into the family this way? This is none of your business, but it is telling of how you would treat your own son in law.

The only thing we have is a silver baby bangle, that was my mother's, then mine and is now my daughters.
It's hers now and should she not decide to pass it on to a daughter, or if she doesn't have a daughter it's hers to decide what to do with. It's none if my business.
It would be nice if it was passed on to the next generation, of course, but I can't insist she does it.

It is still in the family.
If/ when the couple have children, they will inherit.
By your reckoning, by marrying into the family, they’re not yours either so I really would keep my nose out.

My cousins and I have a sneaking suspicion that my nans wedding/engagement set has gone to her eldest daughter and will be passed to her only child to give to his girlfriend. WHO MY NANA HATED. We're all fuming about it. None of us want it for ourselves but we didn't want her to get it either

YABVU They’re not yours, it’s none of your business.

Besides, it’s just stuff.

But you married into the family, so it isn’t your stuff either. It’s really hard to see any merit in your argument I’m afraid.

if there are lots of things, surely it can be split? some rings to one side of the family & some to the other.

my family has similar things. ones with the family name on will go to my brother because his child (a boy) will have the same name. but others will go to me & my sister depending on which we like.

What on earth do surnames have to do with anything? This is a bizarre thread.

You are a new member of the family yourself. Your argument holds no water.

As someone in the same position as the DIL in the OP, I'm surprised you have the impertinence to venture an opinion...

In think it's quite common for jewellery to go to DILs? I.e. be given to sons to gift.to their wives.

I personally think items should be kept in a direct line due to sentimentality. Obviously a direct line descendant or a non direct line relative can at any time lose that sentimentality if they are in need or are just not sentimental. That’s always a risk. If an item is not sold and therefore liquidated as an asset it is just that an item of sentimentality.

DH and I both have one item that has been passed down that does have great sentimental value. DH has a huge family bible that’s about 200 years old with the names of all dc written in the front. It’s a huge lectern size book. I have a jade ring that’s probably a similar age and it was a possession that escaped with my ancestor during the invasion of mainland China by the Japanese when my family fled for their lives. I also have a silk stole that’s about a hundred years old that I wear to weddings and is in remarkably excellent condition. If DS does not have a DD I will pass these items on to my great niece.

I think there is a huge difference between money and items passed down that are supposed to nit be sod, but it’s who to trust with something you specifically don’t want sold. In my mid fifties and having seen so many couples split its naive to not think divorce isn’t a possibility in any marriage.

If she was given the jewellery then she can give it to whoever she wants, his nephew and his new wife are part of your husbands direct family. The jewels were left to the daughter, she is giving them to her son, how much more direct do you need to be. How much money they earn, what their surname is is all irrelevant.

It feels so weird how invested you are in the "proper" lineage of heirlooms. Children make their own families, who cares about the "direct line".

My friend has some antique jewellery. Her FIL said it was “Jones jewellery” so it got passed to her husband (a Jones) and she’ll pass it to her son (also a Jones) for his wife to wear. If she only had daughters she would pass the jewellery to any Joneses in the family. Technically not enforceable legally but that’s what they do.

In your situation though, I agree it should be passed down the maternal line from mother to daughter, and if a mother has no daughters she should pass it directly to a granddaughter or blood related niece. Not to a biologically unrelated stranger such as a DIL.

What's a 'direct line' and what isn't?

In your situation though, I agree it should be passed down the maternal line from mother to daughter, and if a mother has no daughters she should pass it directly to a granddaughter or blood related niece. Not to a biologically unrelated stranger such as a DIL.

Biologically unrelated stranger? Charming. Those biologically unrelated strangers are part of the family now, and kind of essential for continuing the precious 'direct line'

What about if there are adopted daughters in the family, are they biologically unrelated strangers too .