Dear Richard Madeley: ‘Does the child I educated privately deserve less in my will?'
Dear Richard,
I have children from both my marriages. My eldest was educated privately; my other children were at private prep school for a couple of years until it became obvious I could not afford to educate them all privately.
Eventually I could no longer afford the school fees for my eldest out of my income (I was forced by court order to continue to pay them). My parents had died and I had inherited their modest estate, so I set aside the proceeds of their property as a fund to be used to pay the fees as and when they became due. This fund was exhausted.
Though my own estate will be small, I want to be fair. So my question is this: in my will, should I divide it equally between all my children, or adjust it to favour those who had no benefit from their grandparents' money while their half-sibling benefited to the extent of tens of thousands of pounds, by way of fees?
–Anon, Liverpool
Dear Anon,
I am absolutely clear about this. Where almost all wills are concerned, I've always been a firm adherent to the principle of KISS: the usual formula is 'keep it simple, stupid', but let's make it more polite and say 'keep it super-simple'.
The moment you start to make fine adjustments and calculations based on differentials in who received what, when, and why in your lifetime, you're lost. You'll find yourself in a huge minefield, Anon.
Unless you're blessed with the wisdom of Solomon, you can never get it right. However hard you try to steer a course based on fairness, balance and recompense, you're almost certain to come unstuck. Not while you're still here, obviously (unless you try to explain your complicated reasoning to everyone before shuffling off the coil), but afterwards, when it's too late to do anything about the damage you risk doing. Which is leaving a legacy of strife and resentment.
Take the case of your children's education. You played the cards that were dealt to you (you had no choice). So what if that meant your (modest) inheritance from your parents ended up being unequally distributed? You did your best.
I think that if you leave more of your own estate to the children whose education was not financed by your late parents' bequests, there'll be no end of a row. The child who did receive their post-mortem assistance will feel – perfectly understandably – unfairly penalised; even, in part, disinherited. In any case, schooling aside, are you sure your spending on them all as they grew up was absolutely equal, down to the last penny? It can't have been. Life doesn't work like that.
It does you great credit that you have such a developed sense of fairness. But you're overcomplicating things. I recommend you share your estate absolutely equally between all your children. Remember: KISS.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Telegraph
Dear Richard Madeley: ‘How can I rebuild trust after years of alcoholic chaos?'
Dear Richard, Roughly six years ago, in my mid-20s, I found my life pulled out from beneath my feet. Nothing extraordinary, but a redundancy and the end of a long-term relationship quite simply crushed me. Prior to this I'd always considered myself a fairly resilient, capable individual. Not so. My response was one that surprised me and those around me – I simply hit the self-destruct button. In my case, that meant hitting the bottle. Hard. Safe in the oblivion that followed, I took consolation in the fact that I'd likely not live long enough to see the impact of my behaviour. Yet, a few years down the line, after extensive medical intervention, I find myself in near-perfect physical health. This is great and unexpected news, and I can't help but feel somewhat proud to come out the other side unscathed. However, the biggest problem now faces me: nobody wants to know me any more. Close friends, family, acquaintances – all have cast me aside. This I, at least to some degree, expected. I wasn't, however, prepared to be written off. I've never been a troublemaker and have never intentionally done anybody (besides myself) any harm. I certainly don't blame anyone for their caution, but to go from a fairly popular, friendly member of the community, to someone widely dismissed as a 'wrong 'un', is hard to take. I'm hesitant to leave the area I live in. I've been here all my life and I still feel a little too delicate to start anew. It's been hard enough finding a new job, considering the black hole in my CV. Should I simply give it time? I've been sober for more than a year now. I'm not a bitter person, but I feel I'm being served a lengthy punishment from which a reprieve seems increasingly unlikely. – LS, via email Dear LS, 'Yes. Yes. Yes,' is my answer to the question near the end of your honest, almost self-lacerating letter. You must give it more time. I fully realise that 12 months of sobriety, to you, feels like a lifetime. Presumably, the alcohol-poisoned years that preceded them are pretty much a blur, whereas now you experience every sober minute in sharp relief. But those around you will inevitably set this last year against all the long chaos that went before. Unlike you they'll remember everything that happened in all its excruciating detail. And they're probably suspicious; they'll need more evidence that you've genuinely – and permanently – changed before they risk investing in you again. I'm not saying that's right and I'm not saying it's fair. But as you're discovering, it's part and parcel of your journey back into the world of sobriety. So yes, you must be patient. By your own summarised account you treated those around you badly in the troubled past. That's not your fault: you were ill. But whatever wounds you inflicted you have to allow time to heal – which, in most cases, they will. Just give it time, LS, give it time. And, yes, in the meantime, be proud of yourself. You deserve to be. You've hauled yourself out of the pit. Well done.
Edinburgh Live
2 days ago
- Edinburgh Live
Antiques Roadshow guest gushes 'I can't believe that' as value of inherited item unveiled
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info A guest on Antiques Roadshow was utterly astounded by the hefty valuation given to his Rolex watch by expert Richard Price. During a rerun of the much-loved BBC show, which aired on Sunday 8th June, Brodie Castle served as the backdrop for a host of valuable discoveries. The episode showcased a man who presented Richard with a 1960s Rolex GMT-Master that once belonged to his uncle. Richard, examining the timepiece closely, told the owner: "All Rolex collectors refer to these things by their reference number," and "You know as well as I do because it says so on the dial that it's a GMT-Master." The owner shared that he had held onto the watch for about 32 years after inheriting it from his uncle, reports the Express. (Image: BBC) He guessed that the watch might have been a present to his uncle in the 1960s, leading Richard to investigate its provenance further. Richard clarified: "It's the reference 1675, which is the classic GMT-Master when you said 60s, I think we could fairly safely say 1960 to 1961, so that all fits in." Upon closer examination, Richard was delighted to discover the watch was unmodified, pointing out that many watches are often altered during servicing, which can disappoint collectors. He detailed: "They would've changed the bezel and they would've changed the dial with an upgrade," and then remarked: "You would've had it back thinking, 'Oh, it looks like new'. Collectors hate that, it's absolutely original, spot-on." The expert was then left a tad disappointed after inspecting the watch further, noting that it sported a jubilee bracelet rather than the original oyster type. He informed the downcast owner: "It's a Rolex product of course, but it says 'Made in the USA'. So perhaps he specified that he did not want the oyster bracelet, he wanted a jubilee bracelet and they put this one on for him. "Which sort of detracts from it a little bit, probably detracts from it by a couple of thousand pounds." (Image: BBC) The guest's spirits dipped further when Richard valued the watch at what would have been £300 to £350 in the early 60s. Reacting to the valuation, the guest said ruefully: "Wish he bought more." However, Richard had some uplifting news, announcing that the Rolex is likely worth £12,000 to £15,000. The guest was left utterly gobsmacked as applause erupted around him. Visibly moved, he uttered: "I can't believe that, can't believe that." Antiques Roadshow is streaming now on BBC iPlayer.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Telegraph
Dear Richard Madeley: ‘My housemate and I kissed and now she's avoiding me'
Dear Richard, I'm living in a shared house with one man and two women, one of whom is an old friend from university. We are all in our early 30s. We get on pretty well but tend to socialise with our own groups of friends outside the house – we don't do big Sunday lunches together or anything like that. A couple of weeks ago, one of the women – the one I don't know well – asked me if I wanted to go out to the pub. We went for a few drinks, and then we kissed on the way back to the house. Nothing has been said since, and I get the feeling she's avoiding me. I don't want her to feel uncomfortable about what happened, but I worry that if I try to clear the air I'll just make things worse. It's fine if she thinks it was a mistake – while I don't exactly hate the idea of our revisiting some sort of romantic situation, I haven't fallen head-over-heels in love or anything, plus I don't want to upset the 'chemistry' of the house. It's just that it now feels really awkward. Should I try to talk to her? –Ben, via email Dear Ben Hmm. I've always been cautious about initiating 'clear the air' conversations. In my experience, they can have the opposite effect, leaving the atmosphere clouded by confusion, embarrassment – and even antagonism. Often the wiser course is simply to let things lie and resolve themselves with the passage of time. If this woman is avoiding you, it's precisely because she doesn't want an air-clearing exchange with you. Maybe she's simply embarrassed about your brief clinch on the way home, or she feels guilty about it for some reason, or she just plain regrets it. Whatever the reason, she obviously doesn't want to talk about it. You should be sensitive to that. And in any case, it's hardly a big deal, is it? It was only a kiss or two (or maybe three?). These things happen. And if she wants to pretend that it didn't, I'd go along with it if I were you. Least said, soonest mended.
