Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to feel uncomfortable about my MIL's behaviour around food?

329 replies

illtellyouwhat · 19/05/2026 13:06

Sorry, this ended up being quite a long post.

I don’t know what advice I am looking for and simply wanted to share this with other people to see if anybody else has ever experienced anything like this?

MIL, who is past retirement age, has a not so healthy relationship with weight and food. There are reasons I say this which I won’t go into, but let’s just say it is off topic for this thread.

I put on weight recently, but my BMI is in the green, right in the middle. This comes after years of being underweight, at times dangerously so, and struggling to put weight on, for reasons that are also off topic here.

MIL is now constantly asking me how the weight loss is going, measuring me up with her eyes, essentially fat-checking me… she does try to be discrete about this but I’ve seen it happen. She will ask whether I have managed to lose any weight since the last time she saw me. She then confirms “but the weight is going down right?”

She herself is not underweight for her age but is on the thin side.

In her fridge and cupboard, she keeps lots of out of date, expired food. Often mouldy. She will tell anybody who listens how she doesn’t gain weight and how proud she is of it, then going into details about how she manages to do that. For example, if she has eaten a lot one day she will try to not to eat very much for several days thereafter.

Unless she eats out, she’d does not eat “real” food, instead snacking on things like tomatoes or biscuits or nuts, or if she decides to have a meal, it will be something like canned soup. My understanding is she doesn’t really know how to cook, but that isn’t something you can judge her for because not everybody does.

She will often go out of her way to make sure her son (my husband) gets food when we are there, but will essentially do the opposite with me. This used to happen even when I was very thin. If we would go out for a meal she would order something “healthy” then try to eat my food and actually verbalise that she won’t take any from her son’s plate because he needs it. She would encourage her son to get the most expensive and substantial option on a menu, and although it has never explicitly been said I always feel that I am supposed to pick something cheap, sometimes based on suggestions she makes but mostly it’s based on experience from eating out with her and the sort of obvious conclusion you can draw from the behaviour when I do get something that isn’t the very cheapest option (she tries to eat my food). Of course it is possible this is all in my head but I am fairly sure it is not.

I feel like there’s an aspect to this which comes from a need to hoard food because food costs money. Or making sure you get your money’s worth (since she paid for the meal). So her son eating is getting your moneys worth, me eating is not. This behaviour extends to other situations but again it’s a bit off topic.

She does offer me what is in her cupboard and fridge but as I say it’s all expired and mouldy. In the same breath she will talk about how to ensure you don’t get hungry by snacking on small amounts of food like sweets and nuts.

On our most recent visit she made her son some food (tinned soup). She did not offer me the same. She then told me to join her while she ran some errands, in what felt like an attempt to distract me from eating. At this point it was late afternoon and I had not had anything to eat all day. She later offered me tomatoes and crackers.

I don’t think I will ever try to “set a boundary” because to some degree it is a lost cause and I don’t want to make her cross, I mostly try to eat before and after seeing her, but sometimes there isn’t time to do that.

OP posts:
illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:18

CraftyYankee · Yesterday 14:13

So I was the poster who raised the residence issue. It falls under the Hague Convention, which both the UK and US are signatories to. It applies to habitual residency, which is a completely separate concept to citizenship and nationality.

Essentially habitual residency is where a family is deemed to have established their home. It's based on things like renting/owning a house, where children are in school, where the parents are employed. Once habitual residency is established it is something that can be enforced in the courts.

So if you and your husband live and work in the UK and have children in the UK, you and your children are considered habitually resident in the UK. If your marriage then breaks down and you want to move your children back to the US, your husband could prevent you from doing that as they are resident in the UK. You would be free to move back but you COULD NOT take your children.

If you move to the US and establish residence there - rent a house, get jobs in the US etc then if you split up and your husband wanted to take the children back to the UK he couldn't do that without your permission.

The Hague Convention comes into play because if a parent just takes the children out of the country without the other parent's permission, the parent left behind can sue through the courts to get their children back, and the government would have to comply.

So for example if you have children here in the UK and then realize you don't want to live with this level of crazy anymore and want to go live with your supportive family in the US, it's not so easy. You could book flights and "go visit" and then just not return. BUT your husband could sue for the return of your children and the US government would have to comply because of the terms of the Hague Convention. AND then you might lose your right to visit the UK and lose all access to your children.

Not trying to scare you but this is serious stuff that you need to think about before moving forward.

Thank you for this and your many other great contributions.

Okay, I understand. So this would also apply at the earliest stages: if at the time of birth they’re not in the UK but were habitually resident here, the. they could be ordered back even as infants(?). I’m assuming this applies regardless of whether two people are divorced/separated/married/whatever?

OP posts:
labamba007 · Yesterday 14:21

It sounds like she has an eating disorder. I feel very sorry for many women in her age bracket who are obsessed with weight. They seem to spend a significant portion of their lives thinking about it.

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:26

godmum56 · Yesterday 14:07

it doesn't benefit her at all. Either she will be dead or she will have to have given away more money than she would have been taxed. What it could do is enable her to use her money to exert more control.

I think this depends on your subjective view of what a benefit is (“what is beneficial to you as a tax payer”).

If you view paying less tax than you otherwise would - even if you’re dead - as a benefit, then it is a benefit. If you don’t care what happens after you’re dead then yeah maybe not.

Having said that, I agree with you that it is also a way of using money to exert control. I’m just saying both can be true. x

OP posts:
godmum56 · Yesterday 14:32

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:26

I think this depends on your subjective view of what a benefit is (“what is beneficial to you as a tax payer”).

If you view paying less tax than you otherwise would - even if you’re dead - as a benefit, then it is a benefit. If you don’t care what happens after you’re dead then yeah maybe not.

Having said that, I agree with you that it is also a way of using money to exert control. I’m just saying both can be true. x

Well but as a private person, in order to pay less tax, you have to divest yourself of more money than the tax you would otherwise pay on it. If you have a deep hatred of paying tax it might make you feel better but financially zero benefit.

Overwhelmedandtired · Yesterday 14:44

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:26

I think this depends on your subjective view of what a benefit is (“what is beneficial to you as a tax payer”).

If you view paying less tax than you otherwise would - even if you’re dead - as a benefit, then it is a benefit. If you don’t care what happens after you’re dead then yeah maybe not.

Having said that, I agree with you that it is also a way of using money to exert control. I’m just saying both can be true. x

OP, I work in this area, and there are no tax advantages to having grandchildren aside from the same ones applicable to any direct descendent. So the same tax advantages, and total amounts, apply for giving assets to children or grandchildren. So unless she plans on not gifting, or leaving assets to her own children, the only benefits are that there are more people in her family. So she can give extra £250 tax free gifts (as those are per person), or wedding gifts.

The only specific inheritance rules that apply to direct descendants apply to the residence nil rate band, on top of other IHT allowances. So she can gift £175k of property to children or grandchildren, but only direct descendants. So no benefits to having grandchildren unless she wants to skip over your DH.

Gifts into ISA's, pensions, from regular income can all be done for grandchildren, or anyone else (their children, like your DH, friends, acquaintances). They can only be set up with the parents permission too.

I googled it just now too, so I could see what actually came up and how accurate it is. The £3k annual allowance is the total that can be gifted tax free each year. Who it is gifted to doesn't matter. Small gifts of £250 each also to anyone, the only advantage of being grandchildren is more people so more gifts to make to family. Premium bonds can be set up for anyone, paying into a pension is tax efficient, but also for anyone at those levels (again tax efficiencies just as a result of more people to gift to, total gift amounts have the same allowances). Lots of tax efficient options, but no additional tax savings that wouldn't apply to her just gifting the money to her children, you, random neighbours.

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:45

WaryGoldSeal · 21/05/2026 18:01

Op, a slight derail here but do you know if the parents of the grandkids who have been being taught my MIL how to keep hunger at bay know this is being said to them?

And if they did- do you know they felt about that? Or could you guess? Genuinely curious.

Edited

I don’t know. It’s possible that one parent (SIL) is aware. May also be unaware. Unclear if these lessons have been given during supervised or unsupervised MIL/GD childcare. DH doesn’t wan’t to find out as worried SIL will perceive that as having her parenting policed if she is aware of these comments/permits them…

@ToSayYouHaveNoChoiceIsAFailureOfImagination also asked

You haven't suggested that your husband has a current recognised eating disorder or current disordered eating. Does he?

Not sure what is recognised/not. But he does sort of do, it’s just not your “regular” type of disorder, it’s more of an obsession with food/unable to stop thinking about food.

If there’s food around he has to eat it. I can leave things in the fridge and revisit another time, but he is not able to do the same.

OP posts:
BingoJingo · Yesterday 14:47

godmum56 · Yesterday 14:32

Well but as a private person, in order to pay less tax, you have to divest yourself of more money than the tax you would otherwise pay on it. If you have a deep hatred of paying tax it might make you feel better but financially zero benefit.

But this kind of makes sense now with regard to the MIL's mindset and some of the OP's observations. She deeply resents the OP's food choices when eating out if she doesn't choose the 'cheapest' option, to the extent that she takes food off her plate!!!! She took expensive wine from her glass to give it to her daughter, she could not stand the fact that OP had received something nice/expensive.

She lacks the capacity for generosity, warmth, or reciprocity unless there’s direct benefit to her. So, in the same way she 'ranks' who she will spend money on in a meal (to the detriment of OP), she would be resentful of paying tax but her blood grandchildren would be 'worthy' recipients. To be honest with you she sounds absolutely vile.

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:49

Overwhelmedandtired · Yesterday 14:44

OP, I work in this area, and there are no tax advantages to having grandchildren aside from the same ones applicable to any direct descendent. So the same tax advantages, and total amounts, apply for giving assets to children or grandchildren. So unless she plans on not gifting, or leaving assets to her own children, the only benefits are that there are more people in her family. So she can give extra £250 tax free gifts (as those are per person), or wedding gifts.

The only specific inheritance rules that apply to direct descendants apply to the residence nil rate band, on top of other IHT allowances. So she can gift £175k of property to children or grandchildren, but only direct descendants. So no benefits to having grandchildren unless she wants to skip over your DH.

Gifts into ISA's, pensions, from regular income can all be done for grandchildren, or anyone else (their children, like your DH, friends, acquaintances). They can only be set up with the parents permission too.

I googled it just now too, so I could see what actually came up and how accurate it is. The £3k annual allowance is the total that can be gifted tax free each year. Who it is gifted to doesn't matter. Small gifts of £250 each also to anyone, the only advantage of being grandchildren is more people so more gifts to make to family. Premium bonds can be set up for anyone, paying into a pension is tax efficient, but also for anyone at those levels (again tax efficiencies just as a result of more people to gift to, total gift amounts have the same allowances). Lots of tax efficient options, but no additional tax savings that wouldn't apply to her just gifting the money to her children, you, random neighbours.

Thanks for this, very informative. Wondering, what’s this stuff about generational skipping with IHT that comes up when I google?

But probably it’s also about having more people in the family, as you mentioned.

OP posts:
illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:50

godmum56 · Yesterday 14:32

Well but as a private person, in order to pay less tax, you have to divest yourself of more money than the tax you would otherwise pay on it. If you have a deep hatred of paying tax it might make you feel better but financially zero benefit.

Probably just the deep hatred of tax + personal satisfaction

OP posts:
Overwhelmedandtired · Yesterday 15:10

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:49

Thanks for this, very informative. Wondering, what’s this stuff about generational skipping with IHT that comes up when I google?

But probably it’s also about having more people in the family, as you mentioned.

The generational skipping means that when she passes away, if your DH is named in the Will, but he doesn't need the money and would rather it benefitted his DC at the time, he can pass to them straight away with no extra IHT or gifting allowances. So could avoid double IHT being paid, if he didn't use any of the assets he was given in the Will before it then going as part of his own inheritance. Obviously can only apply if the DC are born at the time. IHT is still paid if the estate is over the threshold, but only once. A deed of variation has to be completed, within 2 years of the initial inheritance.

But the only saving for having more people in the family is the £250 small gifts per year. For the rest, the total amount she can gift tax efficiently won't change, just that she has more people to gift it to.

So if she has £1million when she passes (assuming just single persons rate)
£325k IHT- tax free
£175k residence nil rate band (to direct descendants only)
£500k you pay inheritance tax on

The above is total amounts, it doesn't matter how many people are named to receive it, the totals are what is used for the allowances.

During her lifetime she can gift
£3k per year total
£250 per year per person the gift is made to
Wedding gifts (and some other special occasion one offs)
regular gifts from excess income

For the regular gifts, if she had an income of £5k per month, but her living expenses were around £3k, she has £2k she can gift. She could give that all to your DH, or she can give £500 to 4 grandchildren, or many other combinations. That gift can go in an ISA, pension, premium bonds etc. But the total amount she can give doesn't change even though more people are involved.

So it is only £250 per year that can be given away extra based on more people, otherwise the total amount is the same, but split between more people. Does that make sense?

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, just to show you that she is talking boll**ks when she says there are tax savings for having grandchildren.

CraftyYankee · Yesterday 15:13

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:18

Thank you for this and your many other great contributions.

Okay, I understand. So this would also apply at the earliest stages: if at the time of birth they’re not in the UK but were habitually resident here, the. they could be ordered back even as infants(?). I’m assuming this applies regardless of whether two people are divorced/separated/married/whatever?

Some of the questions you're asking can be a little fuzzy. So if you lived in the UK but gave birth in the US, courts would look at intention.

You could only fly to the US until around 32 weeks I think. If at 32 weeks you and your husband sold your house, quit any jobs/had new ones lined up in the US and you were living with your parents and looking for a place to rent or buy, that would be strong evidence that you intended to be resident in the US.

If you decided for some reason you wanted to give birth in the US near your family but still owned a house and had jobs in the UK, and return tickets for a few months down the road, it would lean towards being resident in the UK.

In cases of separation or divorce there are other layers of complications involved. If you separated while pregnant and moved back to the states and you were residing there your child would automatically be deemed resident with you there upon birth. Custody and visitation and maintenance would be very very messy.

Your DH's relationship with his mother is all kinds of messed up and it sounds like she has the funds to make legal challenges to custody a living nightmare. Please make sure your DH is out from under her influence before deciding to bring an innocent child into the situation. I'm sorry OP, it sounds awful 😞

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 15:32

BingoJingo · Yesterday 14:47

But this kind of makes sense now with regard to the MIL's mindset and some of the OP's observations. She deeply resents the OP's food choices when eating out if she doesn't choose the 'cheapest' option, to the extent that she takes food off her plate!!!! She took expensive wine from her glass to give it to her daughter, she could not stand the fact that OP had received something nice/expensive.

She lacks the capacity for generosity, warmth, or reciprocity unless there’s direct benefit to her. So, in the same way she 'ranks' who she will spend money on in a meal (to the detriment of OP), she would be resentful of paying tax but her blood grandchildren would be 'worthy' recipients. To be honest with you she sounds absolutely vile.

I think, again, you are spot on. She once asked to use my hand cream because she said “illtellyouwhat, you care about having/always have good products/brands” or something to that effect. It felt like she just needed to have some of the hand cream rather than her hands were dry, if that makes sense?

But this is why I said earlier on that a lot of these things are very between the lines. If you just hear or see one of these things in isolation (as a bystander) you might not notice or put weight to it.

I’m just not an idiot (opinions may differ on this based on this thread) so I get a sense of the actual reason she is asking/doing some (but not all) of these things.

Definitely unable to show generosity, warmth or reciprocity and I would even include kindness (in the sense of empathising with someone else if they’re experiencing misfortune) unless there’s something in for her/there’s an angle.

OP posts:
illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 15:42

CraftyYankee · Yesterday 15:13

Some of the questions you're asking can be a little fuzzy. So if you lived in the UK but gave birth in the US, courts would look at intention.

You could only fly to the US until around 32 weeks I think. If at 32 weeks you and your husband sold your house, quit any jobs/had new ones lined up in the US and you were living with your parents and looking for a place to rent or buy, that would be strong evidence that you intended to be resident in the US.

If you decided for some reason you wanted to give birth in the US near your family but still owned a house and had jobs in the UK, and return tickets for a few months down the road, it would lean towards being resident in the UK.

In cases of separation or divorce there are other layers of complications involved. If you separated while pregnant and moved back to the states and you were residing there your child would automatically be deemed resident with you there upon birth. Custody and visitation and maintenance would be very very messy.

Your DH's relationship with his mother is all kinds of messed up and it sounds like she has the funds to make legal challenges to custody a living nightmare. Please make sure your DH is out from under her influence before deciding to bring an innocent child into the situation. I'm sorry OP, it sounds awful 😞

Thank you! Can I please ask another question, possibly also a bit fuzzy...

When we got our house (before marriage) I had to sign some kind of a waiver to say I don’t have a claim in it, and would not make a claim for it in the future.

I don’t really care about money or worldly possessions, if I call it that, so I didn’t have a problem with doing that.

But are there implications here that link with this residency stuff/future children?

OP posts:
CraftyYankee · Yesterday 15:49

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 15:42

Thank you! Can I please ask another question, possibly also a bit fuzzy...

When we got our house (before marriage) I had to sign some kind of a waiver to say I don’t have a claim in it, and would not make a claim for it in the future.

I don’t really care about money or worldly possessions, if I call it that, so I didn’t have a problem with doing that.

But are there implications here that link with this residency stuff/future children?

Interesting phrasing there, "got our house" - do you mean your DH purchased it and has a mortgage, where he's on the deeds but not you?

Or (wild guess here) was it gifted to him by his mother, and a condition of the gift was that you renounced any possible financial claim to it whether married or not?

BingoJingo · Yesterday 15:53

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 15:32

I think, again, you are spot on. She once asked to use my hand cream because she said “illtellyouwhat, you care about having/always have good products/brands” or something to that effect. It felt like she just needed to have some of the hand cream rather than her hands were dry, if that makes sense?

But this is why I said earlier on that a lot of these things are very between the lines. If you just hear or see one of these things in isolation (as a bystander) you might not notice or put weight to it.

I’m just not an idiot (opinions may differ on this based on this thread) so I get a sense of the actual reason she is asking/doing some (but not all) of these things.

Definitely unable to show generosity, warmth or reciprocity and I would even include kindness (in the sense of empathising with someone else if they’re experiencing misfortune) unless there’s something in for her/there’s an angle.

I think the word we are looking at here is 'avaricious', if you google this term, the following words come up as as related synonyms below.

Grasping: Describes someone who aggressively tries to get money or things.
Covetous: Means having a strong desire to possess things that belong to someone else.
Rapacious: Implies an aggressive, insatiable, and unprincipled desire for wealth and power.

She displays the below to differing degrees and intensity. However the hand cream example reflects a 'covetous' characteristic, she wants it for the sake of it, just to have some of it. You signing over the rights to the property is rapacious on her part. The grasping is where she cannot abide your plate of nice food and takes it from you. She really is a terrible human being. Choosing or restricting what another adult is allowed to order is about her attitude to money but also reflects hierarchy, dominance, and signaling your status to you, unfortunately. She downgrades and monitors your choices to ensure you are not getting too much and she really is despicable.

The reason why this is so important when you have children, is that she will continue this pattern in front of them. She will show them she values them over you and you cannot allow yourself to be treated in this way by her. Your husband sounds like he is truly unable to see this without therapy.

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 15:54

CraftyYankee · Yesterday 15:49

Interesting phrasing there, "got our house" - do you mean your DH purchased it and has a mortgage, where he's on the deeds but not you?

Or (wild guess here) was it gifted to him by his mother, and a condition of the gift was that you renounced any possible financial claim to it whether married or not?

He bought it, with a mortgage, in his name.

But there may or may not have been gifting involved in some other way, I’m not too sure.

She was involved in the process anyway.

OP posts:
CruCru · Yesterday 15:57

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 15:42

Thank you! Can I please ask another question, possibly also a bit fuzzy...

When we got our house (before marriage) I had to sign some kind of a waiver to say I don’t have a claim in it, and would not make a claim for it in the future.

I don’t really care about money or worldly possessions, if I call it that, so I didn’t have a problem with doing that.

But are there implications here that link with this residency stuff/future children?

I remember doing this too - years ago, before we were married. It was because there had been cases where the mortgagee stopped paying but a cohabiting partner had claimed they had an interest in the house because he / she had paid for some repairs or such.

Once we were married, the house forms part of the assets matrimonial.

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 16:01

CruCru · Yesterday 15:57

I remember doing this too - years ago, before we were married. It was because there had been cases where the mortgagee stopped paying but a cohabiting partner had claimed they had an interest in the house because he / she had paid for some repairs or such.

Once we were married, the house forms part of the assets matrimonial.

So it does make it even more interesting then that she, when she told us to have children during that meal, also told us to don’t wait until you’re married - the time is now. This was a couple of years ago now, we didn’t follow this prescription. She said she knew her son is inclined to follow a linear pattern/do things in order (she actually said “you” and looked straight at him, and actually thought it was weird how she took me out of the equation there, as if I was not party to that decision making) but she thought we shouldn’t waste time by first buying a house, then getting married, and then having children…

OP posts:
BingoJingo · Yesterday 16:15

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 15:42

Thank you! Can I please ask another question, possibly also a bit fuzzy...

When we got our house (before marriage) I had to sign some kind of a waiver to say I don’t have a claim in it, and would not make a claim for it in the future.

I don’t really care about money or worldly possessions, if I call it that, so I didn’t have a problem with doing that.

But are there implications here that link with this residency stuff/future children?

You should and you must care about money and wordly possessions. They give you and any future children financial security, stability and independence. I do not know about the nuances of the law but I know that these are important.

I feel that you have allowed yourself to be diminished by her and I think she registered your goodness and kindness as a weakness, as is the case with many controlling, selfish and greedy people.

I think you need to unpick why and how this trajectory occurred and what you can do to change it going forwards.

wordler · Yesterday 16:31

Hi @illtellyouwhat are you an American citizen? If yes, what is your UK visa status?

Also if yes - did you live in the US for at least five years with at least 2 years after the age of 14.

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 16:37

wordler · Yesterday 16:31

Hi @illtellyouwhat are you an American citizen? If yes, what is your UK visa status?

Also if yes - did you live in the US for at least five years with at least 2 years after the age of 14.

Yes, and i’ve got ILR. Almost got myself UK citizenship but then decided against it because it feels messy to be a dual citizen. Yes to the final question also. I came here for uni, which is where I met my DH.

OP posts:
SpaceRaccoon · Yesterday 16:37

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 14:18

Thank you for this and your many other great contributions.

Okay, I understand. So this would also apply at the earliest stages: if at the time of birth they’re not in the UK but were habitually resident here, the. they could be ordered back even as infants(?). I’m assuming this applies regardless of whether two people are divorced/separated/married/whatever?

If at time of birth there were in the US, how could they be habitual UK residents - they wouldn't have been alive yet?

wordler · Yesterday 16:54

illtellyouwhat · Yesterday 16:37

Yes, and i’ve got ILR. Almost got myself UK citizenship but then decided against it because it feels messy to be a dual citizen. Yes to the final question also. I came here for uni, which is where I met my DH.

I ask because I am the opposite of you - British living in US married to an American - we have a dual national daughter, so I’ve done a lot of research over the years on all the issues re immigration/moving etc.

So your children will be entitled to both British and American citizenship at birth wherever you give birth.

Your children will only be able to pass on their citizenships in certain circumstances which can be a consideration as you plan for the future.

If you are ever seriously considering a move back to the UK after kids I’d definitely get your UK citizenship because then you’d have an easier time moving back to the UK if you had to.

There’s no extra burden that comes with the UK citizenship unlike the US one which requires filing tax returns for ever more even if you leave the US (one reason I haven’t taken the plunge myself yet)

CraftyYankee · Yesterday 17:05

Just to clarify, you are legally married now? In which case even if your name isn't on the deeds you do have an interest in the house.

All of this is separate to the question of habitual residency other than if it shows where you live as a family.

Your DH's family is sounding more and more dysfunctional the more you post. I get that some of it has felt like cultural differences to you, but I think you've been able to ignore/excuse some pretty nasty behavior through that filter.

CraftyYankee · Yesterday 17:10

wordler · Yesterday 16:54

I ask because I am the opposite of you - British living in US married to an American - we have a dual national daughter, so I’ve done a lot of research over the years on all the issues re immigration/moving etc.

So your children will be entitled to both British and American citizenship at birth wherever you give birth.

Your children will only be able to pass on their citizenships in certain circumstances which can be a consideration as you plan for the future.

If you are ever seriously considering a move back to the UK after kids I’d definitely get your UK citizenship because then you’d have an easier time moving back to the UK if you had to.

There’s no extra burden that comes with the UK citizenship unlike the US one which requires filing tax returns for ever more even if you leave the US (one reason I haven’t taken the plunge myself yet)

Agreed on getting your UK citizenship. I also have dual citizenship and yes it's a pain. But given where the world is right now it's impossible to predict the future and whether leave to remain might get taken away (Farage anyone?) If your DH and children are UK citizens but you're not... IMO not worth the risk.

Swipe left for the next trending thread