The details are outlined in this UK news article but the bottom line is the father thinks his adult children are far to involved in "copulation-driven" decisions which harm his grandchildren as well as making poor use of the gift of education he gave them.
The question here is what, if anything, is the child obligated to "do" for on on behalf of the parent.
This is an interesting question because there are a wide variety of modern parents with children in similar situations. Not all are concerned about these specific issue but the basic outline is the same.
Parents today expend an enormous amount of energy on behalf of their children. Children who often have much more significant problems and issues than their parents. I have often written about these issues here: debt, drugs, relationship issues, and so on.
Today's "children" (really adults anywhere for 18 to 50) seem to believe that the cost of their parents "helping" them through their lives is a "zero", i.e., the parents as "their parents," are simply obligated to do these things - no matter what the economic or emotional cost.
After all, everyone wants a nice house, a nice care, and so on.
Its almost as if the children believe that it is their "right" to these things.
Now most parents try hard to offer their children help in this regard. In the case of this letter the help was to provide each child a quality "education."
What is the parent entitled to expect in return?
I think that most parents agree that at least some "respect" is required.
So is "Dad's" letter over the top?
That's a tough call.
I guess its a question of what "Dad" thought the children should have to do in return.
Did he think that if he paid for an education the child should actually use it?
Again, that's a tough call.
Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (with multiple kids) for an education no on uses?
Perhaps the kiddies made bad choices in terms of selecting majors?
On the one hand kids will do that but, on the other, "Dad" still paid.
What about the grandchildren?
Of course "Dad" has no rights there.
But is he entitled to be concerned?