I'll apologies in advance as 1) I've name changed and 2) this is going to be a loooong post. But don't want to drip feed so will try very hard to get all the detail in first time round.
In short I'd like a bit of perspective on something that happened yesterday/today to try and validate my feelings or to help me identify if I'm in the wrong.
So, we've ( DH, me and 2x DCs) have spent the last few nights at DH's brothers house. We live some distance away (5 hours) and don't see them that regularly but we are quite close, it's normally an enjoyable visit. This visit was more wobbly. The DCs slept quite badly so we were both more tired than usual.
Last night over dinner we got onto the subject of wills, writing them, DHs parents not having written one. BIL asks if we have done one, we haven't, and suggests we should. He then described how DHs ex would/could, in the event of his death, try everything to get more and that a will would be protection. This is completely feasible, DHs ex is underhand, manipulative, works the system for her own benefit like a pro ( but that's a whoe other thread) so I could see what BIL was saying.
DH and BIL got into a pretty heated, drawn out conversation /argument. DH heard BIL say that the ex would be able to make a claim on his estate without a will, DH was convinced this was not the case. IMO Both men were arguing from a slightly different point of view but could not see that, DH especially was intent on proving that ex wouldn't be able to make a claim. BIL was saying in fact that she would try to. I think that was his starting point at the beginning of the debate too, though DH disagrees and believes BIL started out saying something different.
I felt BIL point was very valid, the ex certainly could try to muddy water and stir things up in event of DHs death and it would be sensible to have a will. Having experienced loss, and the minefield afterwards that is solicitors, probate etc I thought that limiting things that could go wrong, putting things in place to make things as uncomplicated as possible should the unthinkable happen is a very good idea.
The debate/argument continues then comes awkwardley to an end with both still thinking they are right and the other is wrong. . I knew DH was cross but not convinced he had seen the subtly different POV. Anyway, a short while we all go to bed. dH is quiet but I put it down to tiredness. I should've talked to him but I didn't realise he was as cross as he was.
Next morning, DH a bit quiet but things normal. DSIL had a quiet chat with me about the convo the previous night and how BIL thinks DH 'doesn't like to be challenged'. We set off to come home. I started to talk to DH, ask him if he's ok cos he's quiet when he tells me how cross he is.
He's cross because of how BIL reacted, wouldn't listen, chanted 'I'm right, I'm right' when DH was trying to talk to him. (I didn't hear this)
He saw it as 3 against 1 and I 'took their side'
He thinks I should've supported him and not ganged up against him. there have been occasions in the past where I've spoken to DH about how interacts with others when we're together. Having a laugh at my expense type thing (not malicious but i dont like it)and explained how it made me feel and asked him not to it again. So DH thinks I was BU in not standing beside him, and that what I did last night and what I ask him not to do is the same thing. He wasn't interested in having a conversation about it in the car.
BIL can be quite opinionated. I like him a lot, he's a nice man but not easily budged when he 'knows'. so I can understand how frustrated DH felt having this argument when BIL was being a bit infuriating and superior and not really listening. Equally DH in a row is stubborn and needs to be right.
So we spent the next four hours in silence. He said later he was cross, I think he was sulking. I'd ask him questions and get one word answers. He would talk normally to the children but not to me, he was quiet, queieter with everyone than usual, he wasn't rude, he would answer questions but plainly didn't want a conversation. I didn't want to bring it up again in the car because I didn't want the DC to overhear. After getting home and putting chn to bed, with same limited communication, he says he's going to bed. I was fed up of it and was getting quite cross that he'd go to bed after all the nonsense without trying to resolve it. (we do both do this though, go to bed without resolving. I think he can put it out of his head whereas I having it swimming round in there till morning!)
So I apologised for the effect what I'd said had had but that i wasnt apologising for my POV. I did say how cross with him I was for the way he'd acted today. It didn't really go to plan, there was no really resolution. I left feeling cross still about what a twunt he was being and he was seemingly still cross that while I apologised there was a but in the next sentence.
But I can't let it slide can I? I can't let him sulk/be cross for hours and not call him on it.
I don't know how clear I've been here. If you get to the end then 
and even better if it makes sense.
This is without doubt my longest ever post!