Nigella Lawson cutting kids out of will
Categories: Celeb kids, Celeb parenting
Celebrity chef Nigella Lawson knows a thing or two about privileged childhoods. Her father is a former Conservative chancellor and her mother is an heir to the Lyons Corner House restaurant empire. But instead of living a life of leisure with her family money, she went to work. After failing at Oxford University, she took several jobs in publishing and later as a freelance food critic. Eventually, she built her own empire as a celebrity chef and best-selling author of several books, including How to Be a Domestic Goddess.On her own, Lawson is thought to be worth about £15million. Add that to husband Charles Saatchi's own self-made fortune and the couple is estimated to be worth £110million. One would imagine the couple's three children would pretty much be set for life. One would be wrong.
As they say, you can't take it with you. But you can decide who gets it when you're gone, and Lawson says she has no intention of leaving her fortune to her children. Between them, Lawson and Saatchi have three kids ages 11, 12 and 13. And even though her husband disagrees, Lawson is adamant that her kids won't be living the easy life.
"I am determined that my children should have no financial security. It ruins people not having to earn money," she says. By cutting the kids out of the will, Lawson hopes they will learn that you have to work in order to earn money. Her husband, however, wants to leave the money to the kids. "I think we'll have to agree to disagree," she says.
She isn't saying just where she will leave her money, but she has been very involved with cancer charities after losing her mother, sister and first husband to the disease.
I see her point about hard work and she has every right to do whatever she pleases with her money. But I just can't imagine leaving nothing to the people who mean the most to me.
Recent Posts
- Menthol used to hook kids (7/20/2008)
- Feist's Sesame Street appearance (7/19/2008)
- Minnie Driver set to be a chubby mommy (7/19/2008)
- Dad called pervert for taking pictures of his own kids in public (7/19/2008)
- Gas containers must now be child resistant (7/19/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 12)
Meg 1-29-2008 @ 6:13PM
I had a relative who left me enough money to cover my student loans -- this was a life-changing gift. I still have to work full-time to pay my bills, but being freed from that incredibly heavy debt burden made it possible for me to do things like buy a house and start a family a lot sooner than I would've been able to otherwise. Kids today incur WAY more student loans than our parents ever did -- school is just getting more and more insanely expensive. So, personally, I don't have much respect for Nigella's decision -- there are many ways she could teach her children about the importance of working hard in life. This one seems like the easiest way out to me. Besides, she's still pretty young, isn't she? Her kids won't learn this "work hard" lesson by the time they're 40 or 50 and she finally kicks the bucket?
I'd rather my own parents spend all their money while they're still alive, myself (I wish they'd travel more!). Anything they DO leave me in their wills would be something I'd use graciously -- I wouldn't use it as an excuse to be lazy. Why? Because my parents taught me the value of work from a young age. Not by lording it over me ("You'll get nothing out of ME when I die, so you better learn this lesson now!") but instead by example and lots of encouragement. Personally, I love them for it. I wonder how Nigella's kids will feel about her in 20 years. . .
Reply
Phil 1-31-2008 @ 8:59AM
She didn't say she wasn't going to help them with their education. She didn't say she wasn't going to provide for their needs. She didn't say they had to work to pay for their school lunches. She just said that she did not want them to depend on her estate in deciding what to do with the rest of THEIR lives.
I fully support parents who do not allow their kids "what they never had growing up," because usually "what we didn't have" is what made us the successful people we are today.
I paid my own way through college, my children pay their own way through college, I had nothing when I came into this world, I see no reason to do anything but help others with their difficulties or provide for humanitarian or spiritual helps for others with what is left when I leave this world.
I have traveled to India where the majority truly have nothing. But they are happy, educated, and many very successful in their own right.
I don't want to depend on my parents at 40, and I don't want my kids feeling like they need to depend on me at 40. I agree with what Mrs. Lawson is saying.
ame s 1-29-2008 @ 6:13PM
Wow, that's harsh. I agree with you.
I understand where she is coming from, wanting her children to know what it is like to earn a living instead of having everything handed to them, and that's fine. Still, I can't fathom leaving my children nothing. I'd at least put the money in a trust, to be used by them, my grandchildren, their children, etc in case of emergency or to be distributed when they were much older and had learned the work ethic.
I would never cut my children off entirely. Heck, I can (and have) make do on a beans and rice budget. I want better for my kids. I would love for them to have the financial stability to be able to pursue their dream career instead of plodding through a "job".
Reply
Karen 1-29-2008 @ 7:52PM
Is she planning on dying in the imminent future? Otherwise, why make the decision now? ONe would hope her children would start making their own way in their twenties, which is less than 10 years away. If she feels they have not been responsible when she IS on her death bed (presumably in 30 years or so, when her kids are in their 40s), then she can decide who gets the money.
Reply
Zac the Hoople 1-30-2008 @ 2:53PM
Has anyone paid attention to the fact that everybody around her dies of cancer??? Maybe she isn't expecting to reach an old age. I actually support her decision having known more wealthy pricks who feel entitlement than middle class or lower class pricks.
Shay-kay 1-30-2008 @ 7:04PM
Well, these decisions should be made at any time in life when you have an asset to claim. I like her thinking, though I think she's being a bit drastic giving them absolutely nothing, though I'm sure they want for nothing right now. They ARE growing up in privilege and it could be a rude awakening when the are left with nothing. Then again, this will force them to make decisions they might otherwise not have made. Going to college, becoming successful, and knowing how to handle money.
Look at how so many other silver-spoon kids (*coughsParisHiltoncoughs*) have ended up. I think Lawson is setting a great example for her kids.
Cas 1-30-2008 @ 7:38PM
Why am I reading these statements by young people that suggest the woman will be on her deathbed by the time the kids are in their 40's? That's a bit presumptuous as well as naive. I "am" in my 40's, and my parents are both alive and kicking and working full time too. My grandma is also still alive. My kids are 7, 12, 21 and 25.
The woman is probably trying to scare her kids into growing up with a good work ethic, which is food for the soul. She will probably leave them a very generous inheritance which will surprise them no end. I hope so.
But people who "expect" an inheritance just may not develop into the same socially conscious type of human being that people who are forced to earn their way develop into. Perhaps she is saying this now so that in the future their character will be the measure of their being.
Daremo 2-01-2008 @ 9:04AM
Haha, its called "Insurance".
Let your kids know they wont benefit if you die and your life expectancy increases.
Fact of life, statistically speaking people are killed more by "loved ones" than strangers.
Doing it when they are this young gets them used to it.
Although, practically speaking, "rich kids" are worthless in many regards, the only work they know is how fast they can spend their parents money on stupid stuff.
Look at all the kids who had fame and fortune as children and never learned anything about real life.
That would be a great "reality" show right there.
Take the most obnoxiously spoiled teens and do a "teen nation" type show where they have to fend for themselves....
I'd probably watch that actually.
Loh
Eva 1-29-2008 @ 8:46PM
Speaking as someone who will inherit a lot of money, that hasn't affected my educational or work decisions (except that I don't have any student loans to pay off because my family paid for my education). For one thing, I don't have that money NOW, and I may not have it later (who knows what will happen?) so I don't have any plans based on it. I think it's kind of strange and insulting that this person doesn't think her children capable of being responsible with or without an inheritance.
Reply
Kyla 1-30-2008 @ 5:30PM
I think it's kind of strange and insulting that this person doesn't think her children capable of being responsible with or without an inheritance.
Perhaps, but then, she knows her kids better than we do. I know a couple, nice folks, they don't have lots, but what they do have is going to one of their children and just a token amount to their other child. Not because they don't love them both, but because they know the younger one will invest it and make it last, while the older one would lose it all on nonsense before their bodies were cold.
Bobby G 1-31-2008 @ 4:08PM
Nigella flunked out of college (I know. It's Oxford. Did she then try an easier college?) She got work in the cooking arena. Pure luck. I've seen her cook. Some may take inference from the word, "luck".
Nigella ought to have concern she may not have passed on to her children inherant skills. Would she know that?
This is where we get the expression, "poor kids".
joyce aronson 2-01-2008 @ 11:18AM
Eva,
I won't be inheriting a lot of $ but I agree with you, this chef sounds mean spirited to me.
nicole 1-29-2008 @ 9:11PM
indeed thats very harsh.
http://bestbabystrollerreviews.blogspot.com/
Reply
Sam 1-29-2008 @ 9:48PM
If this were a case of someone who, say, won the lottery when her kids were grown, I would agree that it's unfair. But frankly, having rich and connected parents (who are presumably going to finance their educations), there is no excuse for her children not to be wealthy in their own right if they want to be. I've known some trust-fund children in my life who are horrendously spoiled, knowing that they're going to be in the money when their parents die - an icky sentiment. I just don't see how or why adults "deserve" the money their parents worked for, and I'm very pleased that more of the world's richest like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are moving towards bequeathing their wealth to charity rather than their descendants (who have had a better head start than most people in the world.)
Reply
Carolyn 1-30-2008 @ 3:22AM
I think that's going a bit overboard. I agree that I want my parents to spend their money while they're around to enjoy it, but then they don't have 110 million pounds to get through!
I think it's Warren Buffet who said he'll leave his kids enough money so that they can do anything but not so much that they can do nothing. I think that's the perfect solution.
Oh, to have millions of dollars and have this be a problem...
Carolyn
http://www.momsontheedge.typepad.com
Reply
eugene 1-30-2008 @ 8:32AM
this is all pretty much just a gesture on her part unless her husband follows suit. I guess her children will just have to make due with the 95 million pounds that their DAD will leave them. Poor kids, to be so destitute.
Reply
Meagan 1-30-2008 @ 1:05PM
She didn't actually say she was going to leave them NOTHING... just that she didn't plan to let them coast on something they hadn't earned. I think it's a good idea in theory. I like to think she'll pay their way through school anyway (student loans aren't good for anyone). By the time she dies she might changer her mind anyway, and they'll have learned to be independent. Again, in theory.
Reply
Barbara 1-30-2008 @ 2:01PM
Good for you, Nigella! Paris Hilton is an example enough how easy it is to ruin your life and family name by NOT having to work to earn a dime!
Reply
Hannah Smith 1-30-2008 @ 2:05PM
I understand Ms.Lawson's point of view (just look at Hilton sisters), but I think she could leave something in trust for her children and future grandchildren. She should trust that her kids would be able to spend the money wisely especially if she has raised them properly.
Reply
Todd 1-30-2008 @ 2:14PM
As a 37 year old only child, I currently stand to inherit around 3 million from my parents, who are both in their early 60's. While I do have a sense of security for my retirement, I also know that I may not get the money for 20 or 30 more years. Plus, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN. Stock market crash, expensive illnesses and hospice care, I.R.S. audits, lawsuits etc could bankrupt my parents someday. Unlikely, but still possible. I work very hard at my own career, and want to contribute some wealth for my own children as well.
Reply