To wonder if my DIL is a gold digger?

[practicalorparanoid]

My son (28) got married recently. His father, who sadly passed away, and I had built a successful business, so there is significant family wealth involved.

As a wedding gift, I bought my son and DIL a lovely 3 bedroom flat in central London (they gave me a shortlist of 3, then we picked out altogether) so they’d never have to worry about housing, but I kept it in my name. My son also works in the family business, but he doesn’t own any shares in it. He earns a perfectly decent salary (around £50k), although the business could obviously afford to pay him much more if we wanted. The company ownership and the wider family assets are all structured so they stay within the bloodline and can’t be lost in the event of a divorce. Hopefully one day they’ll pass to his children.

I’ve genuinely tried to be a good MIL. I have only ever been complimentary to DIL, I don’t give unsolicited advice, and despite technically owning the flat they live in, I’d never dream of letting myself in or turning up unannounced. As far as I’m concerned, it’s their home.

My son was completely on board with all of this. He was happy to sign a prenup because he felt that if someone genuinely loved him, sensible financial protections shouldn’t be an issue.

The problem is that my DIL seems increasingly unhappy with the arrangements. She’s commented that the flat “isn’t really theirs”, questioned why my son doesn’t own shares in the company, and has said that if he had more access to the family money they could have had more domestic help (they already have a cleaner coming once a week), live a more relaxed lifestyle and she’d be able to stop working and become a SAHM once they have children.

That, to me, is where alarm bells start ringing. They’re living rent-free in a beautiful home that I bought for them, my son has a stable career, and they’re comfortable. Yet the focus seems to be on why they don’t have access to more.

I’m not accusing her of anything outright, but it’s hard not to wonder whether she’s more interested in the wealth than in my son when the main complaints are about not having access to assets that were never intended to be marital property in the first place.

@InterIgnis
You just won't see it or listen to those who have experience.
DIL will not have a stake in whatever they jointly accumulate, as he won't accumulate anything.
I have savings and a house I own but without moving away from his family and business that would not have been possible. If I had his kids and had to stay in London after breaking up, I would be on benefits.

Which means she is in a precarious situation. She’s 28 & wants children. The what if’s and buts on here may have no reflection on their lives or worries at all. Yes she can try and gain some assets but with an admittedly un ambitious and carefree husband who has never had to worry about it. She may not be worried a bout it. She may just be trying to facilitate being a SAHM (not the most glamorous ambitions & when those rose tinted glasses come off she may be running back to work). But I think the OP is being unreasonable and short sighted when it comes to her DIL. She doesn’t owe her the life of Riley. But what she thinks she’s provided verses what she actually has isn’t as generous as she believes.

As if she’s not equally unambitious. She was also not unaware as to what the man she decided to marry was like.

She didn’t say anything about wanting property and assets in her name, she lamented the fact that OP wouldn’t just give them more money so she could work less/give up work and have the cleaner in more than once a week. That doesn’t read like a woman worried about an unambitious husband and contemplating her prospects should they divorce. It doesn’t read like a woman concerned with independence at all.

He could be equally unambitious without wealthy parents - his wife is, after all.

I agree with the “unmotivated by design” comment. This often happens in wealthy families and is used as a control tactic. The OP is giving her children just enough where they will continue to be dependent on her but not too much to enable true independence. That way she remains in control as the family matriarch, and everyone stays in line.

Argh this is the most frustrating thread ever. If this woman had just married an unambitious man who earned £50k and was moaning that she wanted to be a funded sahm not one person would be like ‘awh, but it’s what she wants’. They be like ‘I want, doesn’t get’ and expecting her to sort it out herself. Becuse she has a self made wealthy mil however, this thread is full of people who for some reason think op owes this woman an easy life of whatever she wants with a lovely financial cushion in case she gets sick of her dh. Wtf. It’s 2026 - apart from people like Pippa Middleton it’s completely unrealistic to think an average woman can or should be living the rich London yummy mummy bullshit lifestyle. Dil is in charge of her own destiny, if she’s unambitious herself it is not anyone else’s job to step and work to fill the void of expensive London life on fuck all wages for her.

You’re projecting your experience onto this situation, when they seem to have little in common beyond the man coming from a wealthy family.

They* won’t accumulate anything, despite both having the opportunity to. It isn’t just on him to provide the security and assets she may want.

Not that she’s even said that’s what wants. What she’s said she wants is for OP to give them more money so she can work fewer hours/give up work entirely and have the cleaner in more.

She said herself she had input. Who do you think paid for the pre nup. Her carefree funtime son or the person who feels they have the most to lose in control and money.

Christ, you hate her don’t you?

You’re OBSESSED with money.

This is the creepiest thread I’ve read in a while.

But the DIL is not in charge of her own destiny, her MIL is. She has created a culture of dependence and enmeshment in her family that will be very difficult to break, using her money to do so.

I don’t actually care about what the DIL does or doesn’t do, I think that’s irrelevant. Whether the DIL is an ambitious high-flyer or not, the fact is that the OP has orchestrated a situation in which the DIL will always be treated like a second class citizen in her marriage.

It might be precarious if she doesn't take the substantial opportunity to acquire assets that she's been afforded by OP, but that'd be her choice. There's no reason whatsoever why DIL should leave the relationship without assets.

I’m sorry but how can anyone feel they have to protect their money in someone else’s marriage? That is crazy to me.

And it’s clear from the OP that the pre-nup was pushed by her and her son was happy to go along with it. And again: why would a man who has no assets at the time of marriage need a pre-nup? Because the OP wants to ensure her children and their families remain beholden to her, and she has an equal say in their marriages forever.

I think everyone has a rethink when they start to imagine having children. If they have been dating for years then they have had great lighthearted times together with no responsibility and his lack of ambition and reliance on OP financially was not the DIL concern. I think that what the OP has done to help her children can be much more helpful for some more than others due to the individual temperament of the person.
OP- I think your DIL is realising that unless she can encourage your son to strive with her to buy a property in their own right before having kids then if she has kids and is the SAHM she would like to be when they are small she would make herself extremely vulnerable if they should separate.
I think the circumstances that you have created for your son, given his temperament are not likely to encourage him to grow professional or personally because he just doesn’t have the aptitude.
It’s not because your DIL is a different person who is suddenly discontented with her circumstances because she got married. It’s because the circumstances around the wedding gift have made her realise that her husband is unlikely to strive to move beyond what he has currently has that you have provided for him.
Knowing this particular adult child’s lack of drive and motivation to move beyond what has always been provided for him perhaps the wedding gift should have been differently structured.You have created or perhaps cemented an element of learned incompetence .
You keep saying ‘well he can always get a different job’ but you KNOW he won’t. Why would he when everything is so easy for him with the current situation and more importantly when you and him decided together how everything was going to pan out financially.
I think knowing this about him you must surely be able to comprehend where your DIL concerns are coming from.

Make him independent signing a property over and just fully fund his life!

Lol, okay.

She’s given him a helping hand, but beyond that she’s expecting him to work for what he wants. That’s it. Wealthy parents that don’t have this attitude are usually decried for on here, so it’s amusing to see the opposite get trotted out.

He doesn’t have to work for her. He doesn’t have to live in the flat she provided. By giving him ‘just enough’ you mean she’s paying him the going rate for his role in the business. If he wants to earn more he can work for promotion. Do you think she should just pay him more than others in the company doing the same role get? That would be great for business, I’m sure.

I’d be loathed to acquire assets as what they can afford realistically isn’t a lot. To then have to split it between 2 people she may walk away with a lot. She may walk away with very little. Considering how MIL views money and gifts I’d be surprised say he’d let her have a house if they got one.

If you can’t see how manipulating your children from a young age using your wealth and influence can lead to them lacking independence and confidence etc. as adults then I can’t help you.

I mean, look at Prince Harry on a much grander scale. Given every privilege from birth but expected to toe the line. Does he look happy and well-adjusted to you?

Plenty of reasons. OP may choose to give him company shares, for example. That’s being the case, it was entirely prudent of her to make sure her assets and business wouldn’t be compromised or lost in any divorce. Entirely normal, and entirely sensible, for wealthy families.

She’s not controlling because she won’t just pay for her son and DIL’s desired lifestyle. It’s insane that you think that’s a reasonable expectation.

Yet, under the same “evil” design, OPs other DCs (and their spouses?) manage to be much more motivated.
I see it as OP giving all of her DCs a leg up, and the DCs then earning their independence. This DS and DIL haven’t yet earned it, so they remain somewhat dependent on OP but can afford a much nicer lifestyle than their earnings power would allow.

Not wanting to use the money to acquire assets is a choice she can make, of course. The point is that she does have the choice, so there's no reason why she'd have to walk away with nothing.

Obviously there's no reason why any investment would have to be in property, and indeed that might not be the best thing in the current market.

come on, it’s completely reasonable to think what’s been done is control. A gift is something given with no strings attached. To say this is a joint marital gift is wrong. A joint gift would mean DIL has some stake in it.

His wife doesn’t have wealthy parents, yet she is equally lacking in ambition to secure anything for herself, and instead just wants OP to provide.

I thought the complaint was that she isn’t giving him/ the DIL everything?

OP has four children, three of which apparently did get the memo that beyond a helping hand, their future is theirs to work for and shape themselves. She isn’t controlling him because she won’t sign over a house or pay him three times what he’s actually worth.

But, certainly in our case,, with the assumption that it would be joint money. "All my wordly goods etc... "

Are you OP? You seem unhealthily invested in this thread.

You also keep raising this false dichotomy where any criticism of OP means we're telling her to completely fund DS and DIL's lives.

Again dil didn’t have to marry this woman’s son, and if she doesn’t fancy self funding a sahm lifestyle then she is young enough to walk away and start again and find a different man who’s independently rich and wants to fund her being a sahm. I personally wouldn’t marry someone working for their mum but she has made that choice. If she blindly goes into a sahm role with no assets to her name she won’t be the first and it might end badly for her, but it isn’t up to mil to solve every problem for her kids and their partners.

It looks like op would’ve been better giving them nothing rather than free rent and not giving son a job because it seems to have created an environment of expectation. Perhaps op could start charging them market rent and write son out of her will so it’s equitable, but I doubt anyone actually wants that.

Interesting use of words again: the idea that a grown adult needs to “earn” their independence is bizarre. This is what comes from an enmeshed, dysfunctional family dynamic.

Exactly. I haven’t actually said anything about the DIL’s behaviour because I think it’s irrelevant. The OP’s behaviour is more concerning, but it doesn’t mean the DIL’s behaviour is right, either.