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


World famous contemporary composer Andrew Lloyd Webber’s fortune is worth £750 million, or $1.3 billion USD, and while you can’t take it with you, he feels you don’t have to let your kids have it, either.  With the idea that his children should make their own way in the world, Lord Lloyd Webber won’t be leaving any of his huge fortune to any of his five children.

The composer said he feels it is much more important for them to have a solid work ethic and earn their own way in life.

Lord Lloyd Webber revealed that his thoughts began to turn to his will around the time of his 60th birthday in March.

He has two children – Imogen, 31, and Nicholas, 29 – from his first marriage to Sarah Hugill, and three with his current wife Madeleine, Alastair, 16, William, 15, and Isabella, 12.

In a bid to avoid his children growing up like many celebrity offspring who regularly feature in the tabloids partying and drinking with their parents’ money, Lord Lloyd-Webber wants his kids to learn how to earn a living.

He said: ‘I don’t believe in inherited money at all and they aren’t bothered. They don’t think that way.’

[From The Daily Mail]

If his children truly don’t care, that’s fantastic, and very rare.  It would speak volumes to his and his wives’ parenting.  Lloyd Webber acknowledges that he certainly has and will give his kids a start in life, but they won’t be riding his black tie coattails after he’s gone.  He even goes as far as to say he won’t be leaving the helm of his company, the Really Useful Group, which produces Lloyd Webber musicals and owns a few London theatres, to any of the children, either.  He intends to leave the “problem” of who to put in charge to his wife.

He said: ‘It is extremely likely that my wife Madeleine will outlive me so I will leave the problem with her.

‘It is so unusual that it’s a family company and I think the question is who runs it. I think it is unlikely that I want to see it caught up with family. Even if family have a connection with it, it should be about putting something back into the theatre.

‘We could use the royalties to encourage everything from bursaries to young artists and composers.

‘I feel I owe a debt and that is very largely due to the success not only in Britain but also the rest of the world.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I respect his passion for his art and his dedication to perpetuating the craft, but I keep trying to put myself in the shoes of any one of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s kids and attempt to see how I would feel about this decision.  As much as I’d like to think I would be fine with being removed from my father’s will or even on the other side, removing my children from my will, I wouldn’t.  I’m not greedy, and I’m all for making your own way in the world, but there have inevitably been hassles associated with being the child of someone so well known, and I guess I look at it the same way I would a spouse being taken care of after his passing.  It would be nice to know that the sacrifices made as a family would be rewarded at least a little bit.  Maybe just £5 million a piece… that’s chump change!  There’s plenty to go around with £750,000,000.00.

Andrew Lloyd Webber and Madeleine Lloyd Webber are shown arriving at Bentley’s restaurant on St Stephens Green in Dubllin, Ireland on 9/19/08. He is also shown at a musical event for his 60th birthday in Hyde Park on 9/14/08. Credit: WENN

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

18 Responses to “Andrew Lloyd Webber won’t leave any of his money to his children”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. geronimo says:

    I like him and admire his approach here. And this doesn’t read to me that he’s cutting anyone out of his will, since it sounds like his wife will be in control of his estate, hence decision-making about where the money goes.

  2. Lauri says:

    Good for him, and for his kids. It is his money, after all, and he has every right to decide where it does-and does not-go.

    Being raised with such a good work ethic should ensure that his kids are successful in life without counting on their father’s fortune.

  3. RAN says:

    I agree with Ceilidh, it’s his money, but a token amount wouldn’t hurt. Leaving them completely out seems almost insulting – especially if one of them finds themselves with normal money issues after he’s gone.

    Agree with G too, though. Sounds like he’s trying to make it classy by leaving the decision to his wife – I wouldn’t want my kids to turn into the Paris Hilton, Brandon Davis, and What’s his name Jenner’s of the world either. But… what happens if he and his wife die together in a crash or something like that? For such a smart and talented man, this seems a little stringent.

  4. SolitaryAngel says:

    It’s all well and good to say that he won’t leave them fantastic sums of $$; but didn’t he undermine himself by RAISING them with the same $$? If you grow up as part of a fabulously wealthy family, suddenly when Daddy dies you have to scale back your whole way of life? That’s just crap; it’s like raising Zahara (I love this kid, don’t go crazy—it’s just an EXAMPLE)in the lap of luxury then deporting her back to Africa to run Mommy & Daddy’s Clinic. I don’t think I’m explaining my point very well… :roll: Can anyone put this in better words for me? Thanks!

  5. Alecto says:

    Uhhhh…I wouldn’t want to be his wife left with all the decisions on what to do with everything. Everything thrown on her shoulders. Knowing what his wishes were. Yea…There’s going to be problems with that. Specially with the step kids.

  6. Leandra says:

    That’s awful. He doesn’t have to leave them everything, but a few million to each would not spoil them that much. To totally shut them out after they’ve lived a lifestyle where they haven’t had to struggle, is just plain mean. I hope at least he has provided them all with excellent educations.

  7. minda says:

    You can’t raise your kids with such a profile and then be like ‘sorry, no money for you’ (like the soup nazi you know). I think it’s mean. If I was his wife (ew), I would talk some sense into him. Has he lost his mind? I would find it so mean of him to do that. It seems selfish to raise your kids with tons of money and then be like “ok, now go get your own”. I find it odd.

  8. czarina says:

    In the article he says “I don’t believe in inherited money”, but does not say he is cutting his children entirely out of his Will.
    He could put money in trust, for his kids or grandchildren. He could be leaving them money, just not ridiculous amounts of it. Or he could be leaving them personal possessions that are important to him/them.
    As geronimo said, assuming his wife outlives him and inherits, she will make decisions regarding the kids. Unfortunately, I don’t know about the U.K., but in Canada, step-children can only inherit through a Will. They have no legal right to anything if the current spouse inherits and chooses to give them nothing.
    Maybe it is a good decision, ultimately. I know stories of families being torn apart by fighting over a deceased’s estate. Greed can turn normally decent people into ugly, grasping people all too quickly.

  9. Kaiser says:

    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.

  10. Anne says:

    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.

  11. Gracie says:

    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.

  12. Codzilla says:

    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.

  13. dovesgate says:

    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.

  14. Jinxy says:

    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.

  15. Sofia says:

    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.

  16. MsTriste says:

    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.

  17. Steve in Greensboro says:

    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.

  18. bicoastal says:

    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.