Daniel Craig has recently said during an interview that he would not let his two daughters inherit the estimated £116 million that Craig has earned from playing James Bond. Partner Ann Stanyer shares her thoughts in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary, the insight has been published below.
It is not clear whether the daughters of actor Daniel Craig (aka, James Bond) have the licence to kill him given his £100M+ wealth but there’s no point in doing so following his high-minded announcement that they cannot expect anything from his will. Indeed he has said that inheritance is ‘quite distasteful’.
Mind you, he has a point. There is a long and sad list of heirs to great fortune who have been ruined by being everything on a plate – everything, that is, except good judgement and a wise steer on life. A bottomless pit of money is less than it might seem.
As Ann Stanyer, a Partner at Wedlake Bell, observes, “Great wealth comes with great responsibility. Clearly ensuring your family has a good start in life is one thing but to hand over millions when they are young and able to earn for themselves can be destructive. To be remembered as a great philanthropist and to be thought well off after your death is far and away a better course to take.”
Stanyer goes on to say that many people in Daniel Craig’s position would set up a foundation to ensure that their wealth provides a lasting legacy for good causes rather than a harmful cash legacy for their children. “Involving their adult children in the foundation’s vision would ensure continuity with the parent’s goals and allow the parent’s vision to last for future generations and not just the present one.”
As Shakespeare did not quite say, some are born wealthy some achieve wealth, and some have wealthdenied them by po-faced parents.
To read the insight on Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary please click here.