DM: Keira Knightley is the ‘breadwinner’ of her marriage to James Righton


First, a little update on Keira Knightley’s baby situation. On Friday, lots of media outlets ran a hard confirmation that yes, Keira had given birth at some point in May and yes, she did give birth to a girl. So now we know for sure that Keira and James Righton welcomed a daughter (a daughter with amazing cheekbones, I’m sure). We still don’t know the name and I have no idea if we’ll ever now.

So what else is going on with Keira? There’s an interesting story at the Daily Mail about Keira being the “breadwinner” of her marriage. Her husband James is a musician, and he was part of the new defunct band the Klaxons. I don’t know if the Klaxons were ever considered popular or if they’ve ever had a major money-making song, album or tour, but James did not make much money at all last year. Which means Keira is the “breadwinner” of the marriage.

She is a Hollywood actress who commands millions of pounds per movie, but Keira Knightley’s husband James Righton reportedly earned just £5000 in a year. The Sun reports that his company, Galloping Faster, which he runs with Klaxon bandmates Jamie Reynolds and Simon Taylor-Davis, only made £14,844 in the 12 months to March 2014. The band have since split and documents state that the company loaned £51,241 to Klaxons – meaning that they have a debt.

Meanwhile, 30-year-old Keira’s company. Kck Boo, made £4.1million. MailOnline has contacted a spokesperson for James Righton, 31, and Keira Knightley for comment.

[From The Daily Mail]

The Mail also brought up Keira’s statement to Glamour Mag last year, which was that she gives herself an “allowance” of about $50,000 a year to live on, because she’s not all about money and she doesn’t want to flaunt her wealth around her friends, many of whom do not live in the lap of luxury. For what it’s worth, I think Keira really does live relatively modestly for a movie star – she has a nice place in London, but it’s not some huge mansion. She likes clothes, but she often wears the same old pieces in her casual life. She’s not jewelry obsessed nor is she big-toy obsessed. I doubt Keira cares about being the “breadwinner” and James seems totally enamored with her, as in… he’s not a golddigger or a K-Fed. So, is it emasculating for James to have this information out there? I kind of doubt either of them care. Anyway, they’re probably just focused on their baby girl right now.


Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

62 Responses to “DM: Keira Knightley is the ‘breadwinner’ of her marriage to James Righton”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mila says:

    that information shouldnt be out there for anyone of any gender.

    • klein says:

      It shouldn’t. It’s entirely their business and nobody else’s.

    • Lori says:

      Yeah I agree. Its really not that uncommon for a woman to earn more than her SO anymore.

    • Sixer says:

      If they were paying tax as individuals, it wouldn’t be out there. If they’ve organised their tax affairs in such a way as to pay less tax by wrapping up their affairs in a limited company (in the UK, Keira would pay the top 45% rate of income tax as opposed to 20% corporation tax) then it’s out there. All companies have to register accounts publicly here. You can look up any company’s accounts at a government website.

      So y’know. Their choice.

      • VoR says:

        It’s extremely common for people in the UK who don’t work for a fixed employer (and even some who do) to set up limited companies like this.

        Any money they take out of the companies (through a salary or a dividend) is still taxed of course. But there are generally savings to be made.

      • Sixer says:

        Yep. I’ve got one! For middling earners like me there are upsides and downsides between self-employment and setting up a company. The further up the scale you go, however, the less tax you will pay if you wrap up in a company.

      • Mila says:

        Thank you, Sixer, i did not know that. The DM obviously tries to stirr the pot and i am sure it might also be related to them being private and not giving out infos to the DM. yet i feel less bad for them if they want to pay less taxes they’ll have to take the downside of more public scrutiny.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Celebs frequently set up LLCs in the US too.

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t think it’s weird that their salaries would be revealed, but I think what the Daily Mail might be trying to imply from their salaries could be interpreted as strange. I think we figured out a long time ago that she makes more money than him and that they both seem okay with it (well, at least I think they’re okay with the situation judging by how happy she seemed when sitting next to him at the Oscars. She seemed to be beaming. I’ll be shocked if they split….even if it happens in another decade when they’re potentially bored with each other.)

      • chaser says:

        That information being out there doesn’t need to draw these ridiculous conclusions though surely? I mean cool, she owns more than him and their tax decisions mean that we know that (and durrrr by the way its pretty obvious sh’ed earn more). But then the media? is it? come to the conclusion that that is an issue… you get what people are pissed about right?

        I’ll put the information out there – I earn far far more than my husband. I love it. He loves it. We live well. We are happy. END OF F-ing STORY!

  2. perplexed says:

    Shallow observation, but her husband seems to have gotten better-looking since being with her. It’s like her looks rubbed off on him a bit.

  3. OhDear says:

    If the arrangement works for them, then why not? I have a female friend who’s the breadwinner in their marriage (the husband is a stay-at-home dad). It works for them, but damn people made some nasty comments to them about that fact.

    I’m more curious as to what her company Kck Boo actually does.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I think it is sexist to shame men for making less than a woman. There’s just all kinds of wrong in there. As you said, if it works for them, why not?

      • *North*Star* says:

        It’s very sexist. And mean to boot.

      • Gretchen says:

        Agreed Tiffany and North Star. It’s also completely typical that it is the Daily Mail that broke the story. I doubt it’s a problem for Knightley or Righton, but of course this misogynist rag wants to make it a problem.

    • blue marie says:

      oh yeah, the comments can get pretty nasty. I’m considered the bread winner of my house and some folks just do not understand why I’m not letting my man take care of me. It bothered me at first, but I quickly figured out as long as we’re happy, who the hell cares what anyone else thinks.

      • *North*Star* says:

        Good for you!

      • Moneypenny says:

        Exactly. I’m the bread winner in my house too and who cares? Me being the breadwinner allowed my husband to go back to school full time, which is good for our family’s future. Whatever works for a family shouldn’t matter.

      • chaser says:

        Good work. I’m the bread winner too. My husband is a creative/art type and while he runs his own successful business the amount he can charge and the work he can find is much harder to come by. I on the other hand am in a much more traditional industry and earn a good amount.

        We both co-parent and have a pretty shared life. I just happen to earn more money.

    • Sixer says:

      It’s a typically Mail story, isn’t it? OHMYGOD, the fabric of the world will crumble because a woman in a couple earns more than the man! Of course the marriage won’t last with her emasculating him like that! That’s their intended take away, the wankpots.

      Wealthy individuals, at least here in the UK, often wrap themselves up in companies, as they pay less tax that way, as I mentioned above. They also get all kinds of tax reliefs they wouldn’t get as individuals. I doubt Keira’s company does anything other than wrap up her acting and advertising earnings, plus get tax reliefs on various investment vehicles (film production gets large tax reliefs here).

      • LadyoftheLoch says:

        @ Sixer: Wankpots. You made my day right there. How I miss the UK. *sniff*

      • LadyoftheLoch says:

        Their finances and the way they run their household are really no-one else’s business, but so typical of the “How much is their house worth?” DM to stick their oar in and make this kind of information public.

        I remember when the Daily Mail was a reputable newspaper, publishing, you know, news. Now it’s just a muck-raking rag, by and large.

    • Claire says:

      According to what I found online her company is registered as — Artistic And Literary Creation And Interpretation

  4. Ankhel says:

    Nasty thing to ask for a comment. What could they possibly say? I hope James doesn’t let this affect their relationship.

    • Brin says:

      Agreed, it’s no one else’s business. They both seem very low-key and private.

    • original kay says:


      someone always makes more money in a marriage, how could 2 people possibly make the exact same salary?

      and who cares?

      • Alice says:

        Yeah, big honking deal. I was the breadwinner in my family, and so what. Is there something wrong with the female being the breadwinner?

    • Mila says:

      its nasty and even dumb, what would he say anyway? it almost sounds like they wanted an apology lol

  5. A.Key says:

    Of course if it were the other way around, no one would deem it newsworthy……

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Yup. The expression is, “When dog bites man, that’s not news. When man bites dog, that’s news.”

  6. Jenns says:

    What is this BS? What a weird article. Do we highlight every celeb relationship where the man is the “breadwinner”? Of course not.


  7. Lilacflowers says:

    Newspaper articles about a woman earning more than her husband only illustrate how far we all need to go to reach equality and how far editors of the DM need to come to stop being sexist idiots. This should not be a story. Holding on to the notion that a husband must be the “breadwinner” in a marriage hurts everyone

  8. Franca says:

    He made that much last year, that doesn’t mean that he hasn’t got any money, he was in a successful band. And even if he doesn’t, who cares? If the genders were reversed no one would care.

    Having said that, I don’t think I could deal with my spouse being the main breadwinner. The best solution would be if we both made around the same, but if only one of us had to be the breadwinner, I’d much rather it to be me.

  9. *North*Star* says:

    I don’t think it’s at all emasculating, I think it’s fantastic! It means he’s probably very secure in his ‘manhood’ which I for one, find refreshing. Hopefully he is.

    (I know most people throughout the world won’t share my views but so be it)

  10. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    Unnecessary and awful piece of “journalism”. We don’t need these kind of details about anyone, and in this case, they didn’t even include all information – it’s all about how much their companies made but Keira earns most from her movie and endorsement deals and James from touring and album sales. It’s comparable to writing that Jay-Z doesn’t make money because Tidal is a failure. I’m very into this kind of music and Klaxons used to be rather popular on the indie scene. They were nominated for several major awards and I’ve seen some concerts on youtube where they were playing fully booked big arenas and music festivals. They did a headlining tour just last year – no one makes just £5k from a headlining world tour. As far as the rumors go, they allegedly split due to lead singer’s (not James’) personal issues and deteriorating singing abilities, not the lack of popularity or money. He looked and sang worse and worse with each concert.

    • Sixer says:

      It may simply mean that the company made £15k in PROFIT. And the profit levels are reduced by tax avoidance schemes.

      It’s a big issue in the UK at the moment: legal tax avoidance by rich individuals and corporations. Many pay barely any tax. Doesn’t mean they earned a pittance, however.

  11. INeedANap says:

    You know, maybe this was their plan — that they would take some time off together, then she would go back to work and he would focus on the baby.

    Damn Daily Mail. Don’t be so sexist.

  12. elle says:

    We could all have surmised this based on the fact that she’s an international movie star and most of us had never heard of him until she married him. Why care now?

  13. perplexed says:

    She’s unusually rich for her age. Pretty much any guy she’d go out with, if she were still single, would be “poorer” than her (with a few exceptions, I know. But Brad Pitt is too old for her and already taken, so…)

  14. VoR says:

    So all they’ve managed to find out is that from April 2013 until March 2014 his band related income was fairly low. But that tells us nothing about the state of his finances in general.

    I wonder why they’re pretending this is a story now. Some sort of “punishment” because they’ve not released any sort of information about their child perhaps?
    “Could you please tell us the gender and name of your kid? Otherwise we’ll print this rubbish.”

    And I’m not completely convinced by that “People” story either. Until there’s some official confirmation or the press get hold of the birth certificate I’d say the gender of the kid remains unknown. Of course that still gives them a 50% chance of being correct.

  15. lindy79 says:

    New low for the Fail.
    Would this be an article if the sexes were reversed? No.

  16. Claire says:

    Who cares who is the breadwinner? They are a family. They love each. If it were the other way around, there will be no news. Patriarchal f*cking world!

  17. Elisa the I. says:


  18. Longhairdontcare says:

    Imagine the cheekbones her and Ruperts baby would have had tho

  19. Karen says:

    Why is this a story? Do they have an issue with it? Looks like, no.

    They’re both artist types who seems more into what they can create, than how much they can earn.

  20. oneshot says:

    oh NOOOOOO a woman earns more than her husband, whatever is the world coming to?!! *cue pearl clutching**

    I suppose the Daily Fail had to live up to its title. Mean-spirited, sexist, AND petty – this is pretty much a classic article for them. James Righton was in a fairly successful band and probably has his own money from the years when they were hot stuff on tour. And neither he nor Keira seem particularly hung up on their celebrity status, they’re very private and I hope neither of them is hurt by this.

  21. Elfie says:

    It’s horrible and nasty to publicly shame anybody for not making much money. They seem like a lovely, down to earth couple, they have a nice life together and should be enjoying their new baby, not suffering humiliation by invasive tabloids. They’re not famewhores but very private people so they should be left in peace.

    The only thing that’s important is that they love and are kind to each other and that’s their business. I hope they’re very happy.

  22. LAK says:

    I always assumed that she is always the breadwinner based upon her film quote vs the level of success of her partners.

    Nothing to be judgemental about though.

  23. Madly says:

    I don’t understand the issue. She will always make more than him. And it is 2015 where some women work and their men watch the kids. It is not a big deal.

  24. WinonaRyder says:

    Oh no! She should be barefoot and pregnant, preferably on her knees and scrubbing the kitchen floor, rather than a successful woman! Call the village elders. She should be burned at the stake!

  25. TW says:

    Don’t know why either of them would comment.

  26. aenflex says:

    Who actually cares who the breadwinner is?

  27. Felice. says:

    I’m assuming her Chanel bags are from her endorsement deal.

  28. Anon says:

    i find it very interesting how we claim some men are gold diggers and some aren’t when living off some wealth of there wives which is more common theses days. I guess it depends on the celebrity. Jessica Simpson and Eric come to mind I believe Eric is far from dependent on Jessica wealth on his own but also enjoys many benifits from her wealth does not make a gold digger.

    • perplexed says:

      Keira’s husband had a distinct profession before he met her. He just happens to make less money than her.

      I know Jessica’s husband used to be a football player way back, but wasn’t his profession after retiring sort of nebulous when he met Jessica? He went to Yale and all, but he never seemed to do much of anything post-football and pre-Jessica. (Although maybe he had enough money that he didn’t have to?)

      That probably accounts for the difference in perception.

      I can’t remember if Jessica Simpson’s husband was called a gold-digger by large droves of people though. I think people just wondered what his job was or if he planned to hold one.

  29. kibbles says:

    Of course she is the breadwinner. Anyone could have figured that out without any investigation. Her net worth is around $50 million. There aren’t a lot of people in this world worth more than she unless she were to marry a very successful businessman or another A-list actor. When someone is that rich, I think the focus for her is being happy and finding a nice non-golddigging guy to settle down with. I don’t know anything about James Righton but it seems like he is a down to earth guy and he gives off a hipster kind of vibe that fits with Keira’s lifestyle. And it’s great that she reuses her clothing (such as her wedding dress) and tries to live sensibly ($50k/yr) even though she has the money to live as lavishly as the people most of us abhor for their vulgar excess such as the Kardashians or Beyonce/Jay-Z. Keira isn’t trying to make money off of her baby or create some sort of lifestyle brand like Gwyneth Paltrow or Jessica Alba. Keira should be left alone because she doesn’t seek the attention and just wants to live a normal life.

  30. Me too says:

    File this under: duh! Everyone knows musicians rarely make money and, if they do, they gave to ge top performers and/or get songwriting royalties. She is an a list actress. I can’t believe people write or read this garbage.

  31. Fan says:

    It’s really none of our business.

  32. TotallyBiased says:

    Dear Daily Fail: Uhhh, and your point is?