Nigella Lawson Cuts Kids Out of Will
Posted
January 29, 2008 at
9:23 am by
Jessica
Nigella Lawson, the daughter of a wealthy couple and wife to one of the wealthiest men in England, has said that she will leave her children not one penny. Claiming that she had to work hard for the money and that inherited wealth makes people weak, she boasts about her plans to exclude them from the family’s riches.
From the Daily Mail…
As the daughter of a former Conservative chancellor, Nigella Lawson knows a thing or two about privileged upbringing.
But when it comes to raising her own children, the celebrity chef clearly believes in tough love.
She shares an estimated wealth of more than £110million with her husband, the marketing guru Charles Saatchi, and has a £7million London home.
However, Miss Lawson says she will leave none of it to her offspring.
It is not a decision with which her husband agrees.
Mr Saatchi, 64, is adamant that the children should be allowed to inherit the couple’s wealth - and the subject causes more than a little discord between them, according to Miss Lawson.
Mr Saatchi has one daughter, 12-year-old Phoebe from his first marriage.
Miss Lawson, 48, has two children, 13-year-old daughter Cosima and son Bruno, 11, from her marriage to the late journalist John Diamond.
I say you work for your children. I’m by no means wealthy or even comfortable, perhaps middle class but one thing that has always been certain, whatever is mine is my children’s and if one day I can afford to contribute generously to their house budget or cars or special gifts, it will be my honor to do so.
What is good enough for the goose (and it looks like she’s eaten her fair share), is most certainly good enough for the gander. Why she thinks that the fortunes that were awarded to her should not be shared with her children is just selfish and ruthless in my opinion. Perhaps if she didn’t want life-long responsibility, she shouldn’t of even had children to begin with. No matter anyway, my guess is when they are older those kids won’t be coming over for Christmas dinner to a mansion and privilege that they are no longer privy to.
Tags: celebrity-chef, Charles-Saatchi, inherited-wealth, mommy-dearest, Nigel-Lawson, Nigella-Bites, Nigella-Lawson, Parenting, tough-love, Vanessa-Salmon |
12 Responses to “Nigella Lawson Cuts Kids Out of Will”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Rita said:
January 29, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Huh, well it sounds like they’re not going to need her fortunes, they’ll be able to make their own by sharing the profits of the books they write about her when they’re grown up.
2. Allison said:
January 29, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
If I was one to have any amount of wealth, I would lead them to believe they wouldn’t get all of it, and then bestow it upon them in the end. But come on, to cut them off completely???? That sucks.
I can see her not wanting the kids to grow up spoiled and expecting a nice cushon of cash to fall on (like some very high-profile heiresses in this country). Like if they know it’ll always be available to them, they might not ever try to work at all.
However, at the same time, if she did truly work and earn every penny of it, then she should know better than anyone else, that a little hard work never killed anyone, KWIM?
3. Michelle said:
February 1, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Warren Buffet did the same thing to his heirs. He paid for their education, but did not leave them a trust fund to inherit. Each of them said it has made them more self-sufficient. They are grateful that they didn’t have to graduate with a ton of student load debt, however.
Any time a wealthy person makes a decision, people always have something to say about it. They feel that they could do better with that money, which is nothing but envy. She did earn her money, and it is hers to do with as she pleases. I’m sure she will fund her children’s educations, but she doesn’t want them to grow up like trust fund brats.
So she shouldn’t of [sic] had children to begin with? What happened to the idea that children are supposed to take care of themselves when they get to be adults? Coming back to get hand-outs from mummy isn’t a way to foster any kind of independence, especially if a kid knows he has millions just lying around for him, gathering interest daily.
4. Michelle said:
February 1, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Sorry. I should have said “she will fund her children’s education.”
5. Prescott said:
February 1, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
To clarify, both Buffett and Bill Gates have indicated that a significant portion of their wealth will not go their children, they did not completely eliminate their inheritance. And in each of their cases, 1% of their overall wealth is enough for most people to live on for many, many lifetimes. Buffett was quoted as saying, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing.” That’s a far cry from Ms. Lawson’s “not one red cent”, and a much more reasonable attitude. If she had said something in the same regard, this blog post wouldn’t even exist (nor would the Daily Mail story).
This idea that it’s about “envy” is nonsense — it’s really none of our business what she does with her money (although she’s the one talking about it in the press, which in my mind makes it open for comment), but jealousy has nothing to do with it. Our generation is much more savvy about investing for our retirement, and many middle and upper-middle class folks will have a very nice chunk of change when they retire/die. The super rich aren’t the only ones contemplating passing on assets to their heirs.
Nigella Lawson is a young woman — her kids will probably be in their 50s by the time she passes. You really think they will just sit around eating fish and chips waiting for mummy to kick? If so, that inherent laziness has nothing to do with how much money she has. Remember, for every Paris Hilton there’s an Anderson Cooper, Penny Pritzker, or Ronald Lauder.
6. Michelle said:
February 1, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
I still stand by my envy theory in this situation. Especially when the author of this article jumps to personal attacks against a beautiful, successful woman. Isn’t it the nature of an insecure female to attack that which she finds most threatening in an attempt to make herself feel that she’s on a more “level playing field”?
Besides, the media is known for taking an offhand comment from a celebrity and blasting it all over the airways. Nigella, given the time to consider how the poorer masses would attack her words, would probably clarify her statement a little more. Many people claim they would feed the poor and house the homeless if they had her millions, but the reality is that they probably wouldn’t.
I’m sure her kids will grow up thinking “mommy is succesful and rich, but she isn’t gonna do it for us. We have to get off our butts and take care of business ourselves.”
The truth is that those with less money can’t stand for someone with tons of money to have similar values, such as praising the value of hard work. It’s like saying, “You evil rich person. How dare you think like us in any way.”
Besides, mothers who have this holier-than-thou attitude are more than a little disgusting. It’s as if anyone with an attitude that they will instill values of working for a living and self-sufficiency in their children shouldn’t even have children. What a total crock. Whatever happened to the adults who had their own identity separate from mom and dad who didn’t have to go eat Sunday lunch with mommy and daddy to feel safe and secure? Or the ones who knew that they were on their own in the world and that they wouldn’t have mom and dad to fall back on if the going got rough?
Nope, we live in a world of pansy-assed adults who can’t wipe their own butts without mommy. And any parent who stands up and says, “I’m not giving my kids any handouts” is called selfish and unfit.
7. Prescott said:
February 1, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Being married to the OP, I think I have a bit more insight as to the intention behind her words, but OK. I also hope you realize the humor of making assumptions and projecting feelings on someone while in the same breath criticize them for doing the same to Nigella Lawson.
I think the impasse we are at here is that we view inheritance differently. A “handout” would be them constantly hounding her for cash *while she was still alive*. I don’t begrudge her for not doing that. Hell, I don’t even think it’s unfair for any of the above examples (and also Paris Hilton’s grandfather) for giving away most of their wealth. More power to them. But to make statements that they are getting *nothing* seems a bit extreme, doesn’t it? Do you plan on doing that with your own kids? If not, why not?
Let’s take it down more to a level most of us can comprehend. A lot of us own our own home. Presumably, some will even pay off their home as their kids enter their 20s (or even sooner). So will their kids not strive to own their own home, because gee, we’ll just get mom and dad’s house when they die? Of course not. Parents instilling work ethic and self-sufficiency in your children has nothing to do with the size of your bank account.
I notice you glossed over my examples of folks that have inherited a nice chunk of change and still managed to be productive in life…
8. Prescott said:
February 1, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
By the way, even the lazy-socialite-example-du-jour Paris Hilton makes almost $10 million a year. Whether she “earns” it is up for debate, but she’s clearly “self-sufficient” and doesn’t need any “handouts”.
9. Michelle said:
February 1, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
I actually can get a little pedantic on posts at times, so I was trying not to make the thing an entire page long. But I do agree that getting a trust fund from mom, dad, or grandpappy doesn’t mean that the kid will be a total waste.
As far as my own children are concerned, their education will be funded, but that will be where my generosity ends. I use the term “generosity” loosely, however, since I had to put myself through college after my parents decide to pay for my sister’s education instead of mine. They approved of her degree (education) and decided that since she was doing the “lord’s work” that she shouldn’t have to work. I, on the other hand, chose a business field and did not wish to spend my time with church activities and was “punished” for this. I do feel that parents should pay for their children’s education if they’re able.
My children already know that my money will go to university endowments and to other charities, and they are encouraged to do the same. They have been donating money to charity since they were small, and it has been a value instilled in them early on. They are also planning to obtain higher-paying jobs (such as medicine, surgery, law, etc.) and to build their own wealth. Of course, we are available for advice at any time, but we lead them by example. Largely by living below our means, but mainly by making smart decisions and not attempting to follow the trendy lifestyles of our peers.
10. Jessica said:
February 1, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
[quote comment="140338"]I still stand by my envy theory in this situation.[/quote]
You are assuming I am envious because I have humbled myself. I have been taught that unless you are a business mogul or a celebrity whose net worth is the topic of discussion, it is in poor form (and even crass) to state (or even suggest) one’s own worth.
Personally, I have more respect and admiration for wealthy parents that pass on wealth to their children while their children *still* grow up to be kind, generous and decent people than I do for people who cannot manage to instill those values in their children without telling them to sink or swim.
While it is my personal belief that charity starts in the home, I have a few pet organizations that I enjoy volunteering my time towards and donating money to, because I feel they are worthy causes — not because my parents took half of my allowance and told me who to give it to and who deserves it more than me, but because they raised me to care about people. It is a more challenging to raise your kids to be decent and grateful when you are comfortable, yet the greater gift, IMO, is to give them both — instill values along with financial and emotional support and raise them to appreciate what they have and understand that it is truly a gift. Either a parent raises their children to be good people or they don’t. If kids think they can only be considerate and humble by way of how successful they become, then a parent probably hasn’t done their job. Whether you earn your money or inherit it, doesn’t make a person good or bad, generous or selfish.
11. Michelle said:
February 2, 2008 @ 12:04 am
If you assume that I “take” my children’s allowance and force them to give it to charity, then shame on you. And nothing about your article suggests any humbleness. In fact, it smacks of an indignant sense of self-righteousness.
Besides, you can respect whomever you choose, but realize that other parents may decide to rear their children differently from you and still produce fair-minded, generous, and decent adults.
And my comment about your envy stems from your ad hominem attack against Nigella’s appearance. It’s one thing to attack a person’s ideals and philosophy, but when you start attacking her waistline, then you let the world know where your intellectual argument ends and where your cattiness begins.
You definitely have a right to your opinions, but stating that a person shouldn’t “of” (I found that rather funny–and yes, that is an ad hominem attack) had children because you don’t agree with how she will dole our her millions is narrow-minded and provincial. But to each her own, I guess.
I’m done arguing about this ridiculous issue.
12. Aileen said:
February 7, 2008 @ 10:32 am
On the face of it, this does sound awfully harsh. But just because Nigella says she’s not leaving them anything doesn’t exactly foretell a Dickensian future for little Cosima and Bruno. Let’s face it, she’ll likely be around for 30 years (at least), by which time the kids will be all grown up and likely to be well-established, having been raised in the “right circles” by their high-class, high-powered parent/step-parent.
Those connections can be worth waaaaaaaay more than a paltry million or two!