Comments on: Andrew Lloyd Webber won’t leave any of his money to his children

By: bicoastal

bicoastal — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:11:54 +0000

The guy can do what he wants with his money. HE made it, NOT his kids. He’s not a bad person, and it’s not fair to insult his music just because his money is going elsewhere once he croaks.

Look what money did to Paris Hilton. The last thing children need in this world is to feel entitled to something, especially in America. Why should parents have to care for healthy adult children?

Further, I have to disagree with the author of the post: Just because the money is not going to his kids doesn’t mean he’s taking it to the grave. He could be putting it to charity, to grow his business after he dies, etc. It’s not fair to judge where the money’s going – let the guy figure it out on his own.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Steve in Greensboro

Steve in Greensboro — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:40:48 +0000

What a human piece of garbage! What a worthless father! His musicals all suck; they are a testament to the bad taste of audiences everywhere. But to withhold financial independence from his children…He is going to burn in hell.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: MsTriste

MsTriste — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:19:25 +0000

The Mrs. is wearing quite a few of his dollars, and might I add she is wearing clothes fit for a teenager, not a mother of one.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Sofia

Sofia — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:46:45 +0000

Same thing happened with the Getty family…it inspired the kids to make their own way. They’re already uber privileged and educated. They could easily. They will get a small sum, just not millions and millions.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Jinxy

Jinxy — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:05:03 +0000

What a twat. Just set up a trust for them to get when they are over 50, or so. Something that might lead them to lives dedicated to helping others without regard for making retirement plans because they had a father WHO IS A FRIGGING BILLIONAIRE. That might be worthwhile, letting them do things for purely altruistic reasons, because they could do so without dying in abject poverty.

Honestly, he may be an okay composer but what a dumb ass. He’s the one who doesn’t deserve a billion dollars. Ugh. Kids you aren’t getting anything anyway, so when he falls over with a heart attack, don’t hurt yourself calling 911.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: dovesgate

dovesgate — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:27:47 +0000

Like Leandra said, hopefully he provided excellent educations for them. If he provided his children good starts in life, they should be ok regardless of his money.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Codzilla

Codzilla — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:21:48 +0000

Maybe let each kid earn his/her fortune in steps. Like, you get a certain amount for graduating from college, and then a little more when you’ve successfully established a career, then more still for maintaining said career for longer than a millisecond, etc.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Gracie

Gracie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:13:23 +0000

Of course, he could be giving them $$ and setting them up BEFORE he dies, in which case, I wouldn’t care if I was one of his kids either.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Anne

Anne — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:55:54 +0000

His attitude is not admirable at all. He’s raised them with millions at his own disposal. Why not teach your children to do useful things with all that money? Rather than cutting them off. Who would it benefit if not his children? His wife doesn’t need it all.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Kaiser

Kaiser — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:40:31 +0000

Maybe he’s just driving a hard bargain for grandchildren.

But, yeah, it seems like kind of obsessive control of your kids’ lives through the purse-strings. Meh.

Report this comment as spam or abuse