As someone who has helped Nigella Lawson amass her millions by tuning in to watch the Domestic Goddess demonstrate her culinary skills, as well as buying her latest Nigella Express cookbook – the pear and chocolate pudding is to die for – I was fascinated to learn that she does not plan to leave her fortune to her children when she dies.
I wonder whether being the daughter of a former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer has influenced her very determined views that not having money to earn “ruins people“.
She shares an estimated wealth of more than £110 million with her art collector husband Charles Saatchi and says:
“I am determined that my children should have no financial security. It ruins people not having to earn money.
“I argue with my husband Charles, because he believes that you should be able to leave money to your children. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
I believe Nigella has highlighted a problem she has seen among other wealthy families where young people may have squandered their inherited fortune away, she has seen the negative impact it has had on them, how it has ruined their lives. She wants her prevent her two children, 13-year-old daughter Cosima and son Bruno, 11, from her marriage to the late journalist John Diamond, from falling down the same slippery slope.
While countless charities would obviously be very grateful for Nigella’s generous bequests, money alone does not “ruin people”. The problem is it attracts undesirable hangers-on and fortune hunters, but if young people are brought up grounded and having to pay their own way through life, such as university tuition fees, getting a weekend and holiday job to fund themselves, paying for their driving lessons and their own first car, surely that is when they start learning about the value of money. That is what Nigella should be teaching her kids right now.
I have already made my will and specified that I want my two sons to benefit from the best education if I should die sooner rather than later. I think I owe them that. But if I’m alive, they will have to pay their own way and wait a little longer before they have all my worldly goods.
She cannot do this – protect her children like that I mean. The fact is that she does have a lot of money, if she chooses not to leave it to her children that is not the same as a family not having it to leave to their children so the children have to fend for themselves. There is a cognitive and emotional element to this that Nigella is stupidly ignoring. The children will know that money solves an awful lot of problems, including coping with illness and accident, and that thier mother will have chosen to give that money to other people and help them rather than her own family. You cannot escape the fact that however she tries to explain it as a noble act, her children will probably see it as their mother caring more for some faceless stranger, or her own image, rather than them.
I agree with you Ellee, she should raise them well and trust them to do right, not assume they will do wrong and be unable to cope with what is really a big ticket to solve problems and have the things you want.
I think this is the most disgusting public display of political correct posturing.
There’s always the roller skate on the stairs if you’re quick kids.. !
Little could have put me off Nigella, but this has. Everyone should provide for themselves and their dependents to the maximum extent they can, so as to ensure they and their families are no burden to anyone else. Of course no-one blames those who cannot make their families financially independent, but for someone who can deliberately to refuse to do so is shocking and unnatural. They could be providing employment, but instead they will be depriving someone who really needs an opportunity to earn their way in life. If she thinks wealth is so bad for people, I suggest she hands hers over now before she is damaged by it. I will selflessly risk the dangers.
Gordon Brown will want his share!
Pip, I think you are right to say it will leave the child feeling quite injured. Maybe Nigella has a problem with handling wealth.
Tom, I agree it is good to share your wealth around in your lifetime with good causes, I certainly would, there is only so much you can spend.
Oh Snafu no! She’s not going to donate it to the Labour party?! At the expense of her children?
I agree with you, Ellee. It’s vital to leave a will so that you leave your fortune to the ‘right’ people.
I feel fortunate that I am not in Nigella’s position and don’t have to face her problems and challenges.
I will leave my children my modest property but instil in them the urge to work and stand on their own feet.
Wendy and I have no ‘heirs apparent’ other than my niece, who earns more than I do. Therefore, we’re going to blow it all on selfish pleasures. I’ll probably go before she does (since she’s 13 years younger) so she can have mine if there’s any left.
I have always thought what a dilemma it must be to be so very wealthy for how does one instill values into children in that atmosphere. So are they living well now and getting thrown out to the poorhouse if she dies early?
Unlike TP, I have always been annoyed by this woman so just another nail in her coffin as far as I’m concerned.
I quite agree, Ellee. Teach children the value of money.
Philipa, when I was referring to Gordon Brown, I was referring to him in his current (hopefully temporary!) role in Government!
He will want to take 40% of her wealth for the benefit of the ‘greater’ good, spending her money on welfare benefits, ID cards and the 2012 Olympics!
How much wealth is too much for children to inherit!?! Socialists used to shriek that £240k was too much, it’s now £600k!
As long as her children learn the value of money by doing menial jobs whilst growing up, they should have no issues…
Snafu – thanks for that, I was wondering if Nigella was going to be a secret Labour donor, but of course that doesn’t happen.
I would question the Labour party’s opinion of ‘the greater good’ – PMQ’s today was a grim sight indeed.
In fact Labour’s intention is to ‘fix’ our children by State intervention sooner (before aged 5) that essentially means separating mother and child which made me very sad and I would urge Ellee to consider a post on the State as a parent.
I hope that Nigella has shared her views with her father, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, who must be worth a few bob. She has a very rich husband, of course, so doesn’t NEED to inherit her father’s money, but I bet she would feel piqued if her father died and left her nothing and all his money went to a dogs home _ or to her brother Dominic. There is a big difference between young people having lots of money from a trust fund in their teens or twenties and never needing to work _ and people who have worked for 20 or 30 years inheriting parental wealth in middle age. The latter group presumably will know the value of money having had to earn their own, and will truly appreciate the parent who leaves them money which allows them to pay off their mortgage early, top up the pension fund which Gordon Brown robbed etc. As for helping out kids while they’re at college, I had the benefit of a ‘full grant’, no tuition fees and a parental top-up equivalent to about £100p.c.m. today for living expenses. I don’t think it ‘corrupted’ me. I would certainly want to pay at least my kids tuition fees if I had any at college. It’s one thing students having a holiday job, but too many today have to work in term time too just to make ends meet _ and they never get to appreciate the full extra-curricular life at college and often have to neglect their studies as a result _ all to get a devalued degree!
I hope that Nigella has shared her views with her father, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, who must be worth a few bob. She has a very rich husband, of course, so doesn’t NEED to inherit her father’s money, but I bet she would feel piqued if her father died and left her nothing and all his money went to a dogs home _ or to her brother Dominic. There is a big difference between young people having lots of money from a trust fund in their teens or twenties and never needing to work _ and people who have worked for 20 or 30 years inheriting parental wealth in middle age. The latter group presumably will know the value of money having had to earn their own, and will truly appreciate the parent who leaves them money which allows them to pay off their mortgage early, top up the pension fund which Gordon Brown robbed etc. As for helping out kids while they’re at college, I had the benefit of a ‘full grant’, no tuition fees and a parental top-up equivalent to about £100p.c.m. today for living expenses. I don’t think it ‘corrupted’ me. I would certainly want to pay at least my kids tuition fees if I had any at college. It’s one thing students having a holiday job, but too many today have to work in term time too just to make ends meet _ and they never get to appreciate the full extra-curricular life at college and often have to neglect their studies as a result _ all to get a devalued degree!
I don’t think it’s any of our business who the money goes to. Broon wont get much that’s for sure. Saatchi, far smarter than the Scottish one-eyed monster.
I agree with Philippa. Nigella’s situation cannot be compared to that of a family with nomoney at all and the children will hardly be left begging in the streets, whatever they do with their lives.
I prefer Delia.
Yes I agree with Elle. Having also sorted my will to make sure my children get the best education I can give. I would add, having grown-up and always lived in West London, I’ve watched over many years a large number of the children of the very wealth become lazy and unplesant.
But I have to say – this really is a lot of fuss over nothing. Unlike Derek Conway’s provision for his children, which should have him in court facing prison.
Well I’d certainly like to help her spend it.
Ironic though the universe is, the thing she likes most – food – for her comes free. I couldn’t exactly wow her with an invitation out to dinner. Or could I?