The ‘domestic goddess’ – who apparently shares a £100m fortune with her husband, advertising guru Charles Saatchi – told august organ My Weekly that she’s decided not leave a penny to her kids, in case it makes them go all Paris Hilton. ‘I am determined that my children should have no financial security,’ she said. ‘It ruins people not having to earn money.’
Paris was recently cut out of her grandfather’s will, of course, after he got fed up of her shamelessly courting paparazzi around the world. So it’s a good job that she can still find people who’ll pay her for her personal appearances, appalling acting and disgraceful pop records. And if there’s any justice, Bob Geldof’s various offspring (fellow gossip column regulars) might suffer the same fate before too long. But like the late Anita Roddick, Nigella clearly thinks that a pre-emptive strike is a better approach.
Still, that’s not to say we’re totally convinced by her theory. Nigella herself hasn’t exactly fought her way up from the streets - her father was, after all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and she’s now married to one of the richest men in the UK. So growing up with money doesn’t exactly seem to have done her too much harm, as far as we can see.
And there are plenty of studies that inheriting money can actually be a positive thing – because it raises expectations, or encourages people to start their own business, for example. In ‘Rich Dad, Poor Dad’, Robert Kiyosaki argues that people brought up surrounded by money tend to look at wealth in a completely different and more positive way.
Our suspicion is that if her kids are nice, they’ll still be nice if they inherit her money; and if they’re horrible little brats, they’ll continue to be horrible little brats.
Still, Nigella’s poor sprogs shouldn’t panic just yet. Saatchi apparently (as befits a man with such a family legacy) has other ideas, and he speaks for the majority of the money. And a good thing too – they might have to move out of Belgravia otherwise. Perish the thought.