Nigella says no to kids' inheritance
Nigella Lawson, is, to put it frankly, rolling in lovely, filthy dosh. Shacked up with Charles Saatchi, the pair share an estimated £110million fortune as well as a £7million pad in London – though with current house prices being what they are, that's probably just a semi-detached two-bed in Muswell Hill.
So the fact that she ain't leaving a penny to her kids – from her previous marriage to late journo John Diamond – must have come as bit of a blow to little Cosima and Bruno. Seriously, could she not just lend them enough to change their names by deed-poll?
"I am determined that my children should have no financial security," says Nige'. "It ruins people not having to earn money."
It's a move that follows in the footsteps of the Body Shop's Anita Roddick, who gave her £51 million fortune away, and Paris Hilton, who is no longer set to scoop the hotel billions after her grandfather announced he was donating 97% of his fortune to charity. Arf.
As an attempt to stop Nigella's kiddiewinks being spoilt little brats like most of the celeb spawn currently doing the rounds – we name no names – it's commendable, but we'd hate to be chez Lawson at the dinner table tonight...
!
good on her! new found respect here
Seems cold
but then again if every day you see tabloids full of the Geldof Girls, the Allens, the Hiltons, the Spears... Well then I suppose you'd want to stop that kind of thing happening to your own kids.
Like the sentiment
But it's all relative really, isn't it? So the kids won't get £110 million (plus future earnings) to split between them, but I'm sure they'll be getting a pretty penny to start them off with buying a house etc, as any parents with the means to would. Also, the kids are never really going to struggle to find gainful employ with the Nigella and Charles backing them, are they?
Add your comment




















