Diamonds Aren’t Always a Girl’s Best Friend: Navigating the Family Heirloom Drama
Ah, family traditions and the inevitable drama they bring! Our little saga today comes straight from the depths of Reddit, the fountain from which flows the elixir of modern storytelling. Our protagonist? A wonderful 27-year-old woman with a 3-year-old daughter, who’ll we’ll call Little Miss A, and a 2-month-old bundle of joy who we’ll anoint Baby B. The antagonist? None other than her 72-year-old mother-in-law, draped in family traditions and an expensive necklace probably worth more than some people’s cars.
So grab your popcorn, darlings, because this tale is juicier than a freshly picked peach. Picture it: Little Miss A’s third birthday party. Cotton-candy skies, laughter, cake, and suddenly *drum roll* an expensive necklace that’s been passed down for almost 100 years, aimed at tiny, probably sticky, cherubic hands. It’s like giving a Bugatti as a first car. Unnecessary much?
Now, our leading lady did what any reasonable mother would do when faced with such a situation. She very delicately (well, as delicately as she could) told her mother-in-law, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Her reason? She didn’t want Little Miss A growing up with a family tradition that’s more divisive than a political debate at Thanksgiving dinner. After all, she’s got Baby B to think about, and how fair would it be for Little Miss A to strut around with family bling while Baby B gets zilch? Cue the family-wide offense.
Her husband, who we’ll call Mr. D (49M), initially thought the necklace should be admitted into Little Miss A’s bling collection. His argument? They could buy an identical piece for Baby B in the future. Now, let’s just address this spicy meatball of an argument. First of all, who has $15,000 lying around to drop on a necklace that your toddler will only get to wear 18 years later? Second of all, we all know a replica is like ordering a knock-off Gucci; it’s just not the same.
Our leading lady’s stance? She’s not having any of it. Quite sensibly, she argues that her 3-year-old would prefer a $10 doll over a priceless but practically useless heirloom. I mean, sure, Little Miss A might grow up to appreciate the antique drapery around her neck, but let’s be real, she’ll probably be happier playing dress-up with a tiara from Walmart.
Mr. D, being the queen’s consort that he is, eventually understood her point. But, oh, the family didn’t. They branded her as “rude,” clutching their pearls and sentimental values like they were anchoring the Titanic. Translation: Drama, drama, drama.
Now, darlings, let’s have Roger weigh in. This mother is absolutely not the asshole. Is she a bit gung-ho about equality for her daughters? Sure. But only because she gets that life inherently doles out inequality like confetti at New Year’s, and she’s just trying to mediate a face-off before it ever happens. As for that necklace with more baggage than a Kardashian at Fashion Week, maybe Granny Dearest should take a step back and appreciate that some traditions need updating like your cousin’s LinkedIn profile.
Look, I get that for the older generation, nothing says
Original story
My (27F) daughter turned three last month and my mother-in-law (72F) was planning to give her an expensive necklace that had been in her family for almost 100years. According to her, it belongs to my daughter because it was always given to the first daughter of the first-born son, and honestly I don’t like the idea that only one of my daughters has something valuable and the other doesn’t (we have a twomonth old daughter too) So I told my mother in law that I appreciated her intention but that I didn’t want to continue with the tradition knowing that in the future it could lead to fights between my daughters, and of course she was offended.
My husband (49M) said that I should have accepted the gift, that in the future we could buy a similar necklace for our other daughter, but I told him that it is not the same for me and that I did not want the necklace. That our 3 year old daughter would be happier with a 10 dollar doll than with a necklace that is probably worth about 15,000 necklace that by the way she will not be able to wear until she’s at least 18 years old.
Long story short, my husband understood but the rest of his family thinks I was rude to reject a gift with so much sentimental value, but I don’t think that’s the case. I mean, if they had told me that the necklace was for all the girls I would have accepted it, but they have this stupid rule that it only belongs to the firstborn daughter and that she can’t give it to anyone else.
And they put a lot of emphasis on that and that’s what bothers me the most because they act like my oldest daughter is some kind of saint and they rarely pays attention to my youngest daughter.
Am I the asshole?