'AITA for keeping my late brother’s necklace for my son instead of giving it to my sister-in-law as I promised?'

"AITA for keeping my late brother’s necklace for my son instead of giving it to my sister-in-law as I promised?"

A few years ago, my sister-in-law (F33) became very close to me (F25) after her husband (my brother) passed away. We bonded a lot, and during that time, I told her she could have my brother’s special necklace. He gave it to me when he got married, and I thought it would be a nice way to honor our connection. She was thrilled.

Fast forward to now: I just gave birth to a baby boy. I remembered my brother’s necklace that was made for boys, and I’ve realized how much it would mean to him to have it one day. He’s my own son, and it feels right that he should inherit something so meaningful from his own family line.

I talked to my SIL about it recently, explaining that I’ve changed my mind and want to keep the necklace for my son instead. I offered to buy her a different, special piece of jewelry with my brother’s name, but she got upset and said I broke my promise. She told me she doesn’t even want to talk to me anymore, and now my niece (her daughter) is angry with me too.

I feel bad, but at the same time, I think it makes more sense for the necklace to stay in the immediate family and with a boy. My niece can’t comprehend even though I’ve tried explaining this to her…

AITA for keeping the locket for my own child instead of giving it to my SIL?

Let's see what readers thought:

polyc writes:

YTA. You’re clearly grieving an awful loss, and it’s understandable that you want to pass something important like that to your own son, but your SIL just lost the love of her life. And your niece just lost her dad.

Your newborn baby has never met his uncle, whereas your SIL and niece are grieving their devastating loss. Promising your SIL the necklace and then changing your mind must be so painful for her.

Also, you mention wanting to keep the necklace in the immediate family. I don’t think you realize that your SIL and niece are your brother’s immediate family, even if you don’t consider them to be yours.

agah6 writes:

YTA. It'll be more meaningful to your SIL and her (your brother's) daughter than to your son that never met him.

Also, this whole "makes more sense to stay with a boy" is totally ew and old fashioned. Maybe it's a "boys necklace", but newsflash - anyone would be an idiot to wear it now. Sentimental items belong in the family home, stored safely.

Ergo, it wont matter if it's a "boys" necklace or a "girls" one. Too many silly stories about people wearing sentimental jewelry then losing it forever because they decided to wear it. And tucked away, it'll mean much, much more to your brother's immediate family (which is his widow and his daughter) than to his nephew.

aga7n writes:

YTA. First, you made a promise. And second, you think your brother's necklace would somehow mean more to your son who never even met his uncle than to your brother's widow and child? Please. Your brother would be ashamed of you.