Skip Nav
Wedding
72 Beautiful Wedding-Invite Printables to Download For Free!
Disney
36 Reasons You Should Stay FAR AWAY From Disneyland During Halloween Time
Organization
Watch This Woman Pack More Than 100 Things Into a TINY Carry-On Bag

Nigella Lawson Will Leave Her Kids With Nothing

Nigella Lawson Dishes Out Tough Love

While the chatty chef serves up generous portions on TV, off screen Nigella Lawson has been getting into tiffs with her husband about preferring not to leave the fruits of their labor to the fruits of their loins. Nigella has made it well known that she plans on leaving none (zip!) of their £100 million estate to their children. Seems like she may be taking Melinda Gates' take on inheritance to the next level?

Nigella's disagreeing husband is marketing guru Charles Saatchi and he feels exactly opposite about leaving their kids in privileged financial care. Nigella was straightforward when asked what she hoped her children would learn from her. To see what she had to say please

To know that I am working and that you have to work in order to earn money. 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.

You can agree to disagree with your husband on whether or not Gossip Girl trumps a basketball game for coveted screen time, but not on a more meaningful issue like this! There has to be some kind of compromise. She hasn't suggested where their amassed wealth would be directed instead of their offspring's bank accounts. Do you think she's doing a service to her kids or is her approach a little too harsh?

Source

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
i-am-awesomeness i-am-awesomeness 8 years
I agree with one of the posters above. Saatchi has no call over what Nigella does with HER own children. If she chooses to leave them everything and him with nothing, she can. It is her money and her children, not their children. I do think that she should leave them some money in a trust for their college education as well as for future grandchildren. That's reasonable, what with the cost of a college education these days. And yes, she should definitely set some money aside, in the event of some accident where she would become incapacitated and one of her children seriously injured/disabled-- she would then obviously be unable to modify the will.
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
I see her point, but to me one of the biggest motivations of working hard to try to save money (besides for vacations and nice things for ME) is to have something for my future kids. Sure I wouldn't want them to turn out spoiled and not know how to work for their own living, but if I could leave them some money to make life a bit easier for them, I'd consider that a privilege and be proud that I could do it for my kids.
chancleta chancleta 8 years
like with most things in lifethere's a balancei think perhaps she should strive to meet thatyou can raise finacially knowledgeable and responsible children who know the value of a dollar and still help them out a bitlike paying for collegemaybe they could leave their kids money with stipulations or somethinglike, "you can have this amount if you attend college andthis amount when you finish college"
chancleta chancleta 8 years
like with most things in life there's a balance i think perhaps she should strive to meet that you can raise finacially knowledgeable and responsible children who know the value of a dollar and still help them out a bit like paying for college maybe they could leave their kids money with stipulations or something like, "you can have this amount if you attend college and this amount when you finish college"
juliegal juliegal 8 years
maybe she should focus on being a good parent and teaching her children good values, right from wrong and responsibility.....if she teaches them well they wont end up like spoiled brat trust fund babies....that being said, i think she's being a mean cow for not leaving her kids w/ $$$$
tiff58 tiff58 8 years
This is crazy to me. I grew up with VERY little money- we lived below the poverty line for years, and I became successful, so I do not believe in free rides. But, I also do not think that helping your children with education, and allowing them to have experiences that only people at those financial levels can have (world travel, with an educational focus)is wrong. I would have expectations of them that they show that they can be responsible human beings- grades, volunteering, work, but I would help them.
redegg redegg 8 years
Well, she came from a wealthy family and married money so she is making it a little harder for her kids than it was for her. I'm all for working hard for earning your own way but I think she's talking out of both sides of her mouth here.
SugarCat SugarCat 8 years
She should leave them with enough so they can invest it, but eh, I'm not a parent so who am I to judge?
ilanac13 ilanac13 8 years
i think that i can understand her point a little - when kids are spoiled and know that they don't have to work - there are times when bad things come of it. i think that she should leave it to them in some manner...but it's her life/family so we really can't judge.
Twinkle1 Twinkle1 8 years
Although it sounds harsh I think she is doing them a service by at least saying that she won't be leaving them anything. Maybe this will motivate them to work hard like she has. But I hope that she would actually leave them something in the end.
JovianSkies JovianSkies 8 years
Hm...I have to stop commenting when I'm sleepy! My sentence nearly doesn't make any sense... :ZZZ:
JovianSkies JovianSkies 8 years
Though I believe that if parents can, they should help (or pay most of) things like school payments, she should leave a savings, or at least emergency account for her children. That way, they'd be insured without being spoiled.
Knight-Who-Says-Ni Knight-Who-Says-Ni 8 years
There are all kinds of ways to leave your kids money. If she puts it in a trust for her children, she can dictate when they get the money, how much, what they have to do to get a distribution (e.g. graduate from college, actively work in your career, do a certain amount of philanthropy, etc.), and who's in charge of everything. I work at a law firm where we handle this stuff day in and day out (though I'm in the U.S., and laws are sure to be different in the U.K.) and there are really a lot of options - as restrictive or liberal as you want them to be.
sophia_HL sophia_HL 8 years
Why accumulate so much money if you are not planning on passing it down? I understand that they might get spoiled, but what if there is some unforeseen tragedy in their future? What if one of them were to become disabled? Who would be so stupid as to risk that?
karisaamy karisaamy 8 years
I think it's great that she wants her children to have some responsibility, but not leaving them anything is a bit much, you can still leave them say $100,000 and they won't be spoiled.
nuttmegs17 nuttmegs17 8 years
Maybe she's putting that comment out there so they will REALLY think they are on their own. I have a hard time believing that she wouldn't leave them a dime. I have a friend whose parents are pretty well off but he has had to work for everthing. If he wanted a fancy trip, it was up to him to save and pay for it. Then, every once in a while, they would surprise him and pay for something. It meant more b/c he never expected it and he truly valued their help. So maybe she's just scaring them so they don't go around expected a free ride.
elle-j elle-j 8 years
Thanks Jillz!In that case, I think they should be left a certain portion, but they are not to receive it until they are at least 35 years old. This way, when they finish college, they have to go out and find a way to make a living. The rest just comes down to good parenting!
elle-j elle-j 8 years
Thanks Jillz! In that case, I think they should be left a certain portion, but they are not to receive it until they are at least 35 years old. This way, when they finish college, they have to go out and find a way to make a living. The rest just comes down to good parenting!
Moms Moms 8 years
It's admirable that Nigella wants to instill a sense of financial responsibility in her kids, but if I were in her shoes — I'd leave my children the money. As a mom, I'd hope I'd raised them to handle the responsibility of doing the right things with their inheritance.
Jillz1128 Jillz1128 8 years
ellej-I think most of the money comes from hubby-Saatchi and Saatchi is one of the hugest advertising firms in the worldI think that they should at least leave the kids some money. I wouldn't feel right leave kids without any help
Jillz1128 Jillz1128 8 years
ellej-I think most of the money comes from hubby-Saatchi and Saatchi is one of the hugest advertising firms in the world I think that they should at least leave the kids some money. I wouldn't feel right leave kids without any help
LaLaLaurie06 LaLaLaurie06 8 years
I agree with Lilavati. This woman is not going to give her kids ANY money? Not even some "help" money?
KerryG KerryG 8 years
Wow, that's a really tough issue, and I hope for the sake of their family they can come to a reasonable compromise!Personally, I'm inclined to side with Nigella. Not helping them out financially at all seems a bit harsh, but I agree that kids should work for what they want but don't need (and some things they do need, like cars and housing when they get older), and unusually privileged children even more than the rest of us, lest they turn into walking wastes of oxygen like Paris Hilton. Just compare Paris to Warren Buffett's children, who not only work at real jobs and are rich in their own right, but also use the money they have to do serious charity work like their father. I believe in raising kids, rich or poor, to have a sense of responsibility to themselves and society, which the expectation of a large inheritance tends not to encourage. I know a 26 year old who barely graduated high school and is partying away his life on the expectation of $200,000, which can barely get you a decent house in this city. Imagine what $100 million would do.
KerryG KerryG 8 years
Wow, that's a really tough issue, and I hope for the sake of their family they can come to a reasonable compromise! Personally, I'm inclined to side with Nigella. Not helping them out financially at all seems a bit harsh, but I agree that kids should work for what they want but don't need (and some things they do need, like cars and housing when they get older), and unusually privileged children even more than the rest of us, lest they turn into walking wastes of oxygen like Paris Hilton. Just compare Paris to Warren Buffett's children, who not only work at real jobs and are rich in their own right, but also use the money they have to do serious charity work like their father. I believe in raising kids, rich or poor, to have a sense of responsibility to themselves and society, which the expectation of a large inheritance tends not to encourage. I know a 26 year old who barely graduated high school and is partying away his life on the expectation of $200,000, which can barely get you a decent house in this city. Imagine what $100 million would do.
wackdoodle wackdoodle 8 years
The children she has are her children from her first marriage, of which she is a widow so she may do whatever she wishes without Charles' approval. I agree with Nigella, she worked her bum off (or on) to make the money she has and her children be encouraged to develop a passion and work rather than being encouraged to rely on her previous financial gains.
Hillary Clinton's Net Worth
How to Save on a First-Class Ticket
Things to Do Instead of Spending Money
Kim Kardashian's Warhol Portrait
Top Food News | Summer 2013
How to Save Money at Bed Bath & Beyond
Anthony Bourdain and Nigella Lawson Interview For The Taste

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Career & Money
X