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.

In both of my cultural traditions jewellry only passes through the maternal line for that reason. If DN remains the only girl from me and and DS then she will inherit all of my GM, my DM, my DS and my jewellry (except for a few bits DP bought). That would mean approx 50-60k worth of gold and diamonds.

As someone who deals in antiques I feel quite ambivalent about this.

I inherited my grandmother's jewellery and the contents of her house. I kept most of the jewellery and some of the smaller furniture (most was too big for my small flat). But I am now in my 70s with no children and my nieces and great nieces are really not into antiques. So I have no one to leave it to.

I also feel that you never really own an antique. Rather you are simply the custodian of it for the time its in your possession. You can enjoy wearing/using it/looking at it but there come a time to pass it on. As I have no one who wants these items per se then I will simply be passing them back into the market for other collectors to enjoy.

I have willed all my possessions to a nephew who helps me a great deal. I told him to sell them for what he can and to spend the money on something he will enjoy.

I was welcomed into the family with a beloved bracelet from my husband's grandmother. What if a family only has boys? The jewelry should never be worn again because the only women married in?

What on earth has women changing or not changing their surnames got to do with it?

In the end it's all just more clutter, heirloom or not!

I'm not sentimental about items so I'd probably just sell it. I can't bare junk that gets 'passed down'.

I think it's a bit interesting to include the fact that your husband's sister changed her surname when she was married. That's a traditional thing to do, so I'd have expected that to be "approved" by someone who believes that family heirlooms should stay with the direct line of a family, which is also quite traditional.

It's really none of your business, since in any event, it's not your "direct-line" family heirloom, either. I do have some sympathy if you feel that your husband and daughter have been slighted. Maybe it would have been nice of her aunt to give a piece of family jewelry to your daughter, her niece, but on the other hand, did your husband inherit some other family heirlooms that will eventually go to your daughter?

They're not any more your family than her's.

And seriously what the heck has name to do with it???? My kids have my family name. My sister's don't. Still family.

You sound grabby and awful OP

It’s strange she wouldn’t wait until they had kids to see give it to a potential grand daughter.

@ObviousNameChage

That’s awful. Inheritance really brings out people’s true colours.

@BoaCunstrictor

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

Agree. Sounds like a badly written regency novel. Back away op! You will give yourself an ulcer. Jewellery was given to family member with no restrictions and it's up to them what they do with it. Remember it's only STUFF.

I struggle with this.

MIL has lots of heirloom items which it’s super important to her are used. Think jewellery, christening gowns…etc the issue is whilst I don’t want to upset her I’m quietly aware that all these will go to SIL not me and therefore I can’t pass them on to our children.

I wore a family piece for my wedding, didn’t think about it much at the time but now wish I hadn’t as has been given to SIL.

I think best way to deal is to be very direct. We are christening DD soon and MIL assumed we’d use the family gown but I was direct and told her I wasn’t going to use it as I wouldn’t be able to give it to DD to christen her future children in. Credit to MIL she accepted my point and now DD will be christened in my gown which I will pass down to her.

Whilst it doesn’t massively matter I suppose, it kinda felt like I/my kids were just borrowing someone else’s tradition that would never be theres or belong to them.

I have always thought that jewellery passed through the female line. I would expect my daughter to have most of mine. It is just the family tradition. My family bible has also been passed down the maternal line for quite a few generations and I will continue the tradition.

Jewellery is often passed down the female line and marriage = family.

And you married in anyway. what you mean is you want the jewellery for your child and your way to justify it is down the surnameS which means nothing.

I have always thought that jewellery passed through the female line.

Theoretically in my family we have always passed things down with the maternal line being the default "custodians" but we have tried to ensure equal distribution where possible.

My grandmother passed away last year and left a lot of jewellery. About 10% were specific pieces she willed to specific people but the other 90% was officially left to my mother. As there are just so many grand children and great grandchildren my grandmother didn't want to have to keep updating her will to give specific items to each person individually, or risk missing anyone out, so left it all to my mum on the understanding she was just the legal custodian and it would be distributed to all of the family.

My mother has no need or want for all of that jewellery, my married in aunt's have been with my uncles for 20+ years (and my grandmother gifted them all jewellery as wedding gifts) so other than a couple of sentimental pieces that my mother wanted to keep she distributed it to all of the grandchildren.

To make it "fair" all of the adult children were allowed to pick a set (necklace/bracelet/earrings and ring) each, from eldest to youngest, and items were put aside for younger cousins - the youngest of my cousins is only 12 so items have been put aside for them to be given when they turn 18.

For the males who have wives then they picked out a set for them, and for the males who don't yet have partners they picked out a set to be kept as wedding gifts for their eventual wives. Once all of the grandchildren had chosen what they wanted anyone who had children was then allowed to choose another piece from the collection for them. Any other items that were still in the collection are being held by my mother to be gifted to any future children in the family but until then they are part of my mother's collection and if anything was to happen to her the entire collection would come to me and my sister.

My Mum's Mum had amazing diamond and platinum rings. After her death, she wrote my Mum out of her will entirely (and consequently me and my two sisters) and left everything to my Aunt.

My Aunt hid the fact that my Mum was written out of the will and just split it all.

My Gran was horrible as is my Mum. I loved my Gran's rings but since there is no emotional connection to her, or to my Mum, I don't want them.

It has been a wonderful excuse to buy myself three vintage diamond and platinum rings which I wear every day.

The value of items lies in the emotional ties attached to them.