What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

What does JK Rowling do with her money?

R

Ronley

What does JK Rowling do with her money?
By ALISON BOSHOFF
London Mail
Last updated at 00:13am on 24th August 2006

For a woman who claims her life is 'mundane', JK Rowling likes a luxury holiday. In the past few years she has cruised the Galapagos at a cost of around £15,000, blown £14,000 on a holiday in Mauritius and enjoyed the comforts of a £6,000-a week hotel in the Seychelles.

Her latest outing, however, tops the lot. For, after a charitable engagement in New York, she and her family have decamped to the Hamptons, that millionaire's playground on the East Coast, to stay in an imposing seven-bedroom beachfront house. The cost - £76,000 a week.

Jo Rowling can, of course, afford it - and then some. Her fortune is somewhere between £500 million and £600 million and, when the seventh and final instalment of Harry Potter is published next year, will receive another significant boost.

More money generated by the movies, merchandising and royalties from the books will continue to roll in for the rest of her life.

Indeed, the scale of her wealth is such that it is hard to comprehend. It has been said she is richer than the Queen. She earns around £1 million every three days. It is the kind of fortune it would be impossible to spend even if she stayed in that luxury pad in the Hamptons all year round.

Her life now is, naturally, very different from the hand-to-mouth struggle of the days before Potter was published. Back then, she famously nursed cold coffees in an Edinburgh cafe for hours as she wrote, her daughter Jessica sleeping in a buggy beside her. She subsisted on £70 a week benefits, and her flat was infested with mice.

Now, she has a property portfolio (Edinburgh, Perthshire and Kensington), flies by private jet and dresses herself in Vivienne Westwood for special occasions.

And yet the story of what Jo Rowling spends her money on is far from a predictable tale of conspicuous consumption. Indeed, it is a story which provides a valuable and uplifting counterpoint to the circus of pointless and continuous spending indulged in by other modern celebrities like, say, Victoria Beckham.

Having found fame and fortune late in life, she has not been tempted into any fashion excesses. Indeed, she has never been particularly interested in style, and often describes her younger self as a 'freckled beach ball'. She is appalled by the excesses of modern celebrity culture and particularly disturbed by the cult of thin-ness.

That said, she does like a nice handbag, and glamorous shoes - Jimmy Choo, Prada, or even Dior. When she won a literary award earlier this year, she told the audience: 'My first award was a Nibbie, but that night I was wearing much, much cheaper shoes.'

But as she told an interviewer recently: 'I've got a mental amount I can't spend beyond. I limit myself to what I think I would be justified in spending on frivolity.' The amount, it seems, is around £500.

For although her life is comfortable and she allows herself some 'treats', in truth Jo Rowling lives not much better than the wife of say, an averagely successful City banker. She does not have, a la Posh, a dozen diamond-encrusted watches - actually she barely ever wears one and the most expensive in her collection is a fairly simple £300 number from Gucci.

She would be quite horrified by the idea of buying, as Victoria has done, an expensive designer watch worth several thousand pounds for one of her three children (Jessica, from her first marriage, is 11, David is three and Mackenzie, her baby daughter, one).

Luxury cars

Nor does this woman, who is among the wealthiest in the world, allow herself the decadent pleasure of one of the new generation of luxury cars. Sources in Edinburgh indicate that she doesn't even have a Chelsea tractor. She prefers something anonymous, as does her husband Neil Murray.

(Murray, for goodness' sake, continues to work as a GP and, in her own words, 'doesn't really spend money'.)

At times over the past nine years she has seemed to be in open rebellion against her wealth. She, for instance, insisted on delivering both her children in her local NHS hospital, and her offspring are educated at local state schools.

It's not that she was born poor: her childhood was comfortable, and her father is a retired Rolls-Royce engineer. But she does have that formative experience of poverty as a young adult after the break-up of her first marriage, and this seems to have combined with a sense of social justice to make her a very uneasy multi-millionaire.

For, it emerges, her wealth has made her uncomfortable to the point of soul-searching, if not actual anguish. And although she is now far more sanguine about the 'ludicrous' amount of money which she earns, she still seems to believe, deep down, that she does not really deserve to be so utterly, stinking rich.

And so she has quietly but steadily been engaged in giving away great chunks of her money. She gave £22 million to Comic Relief, for instance.

Charity

She has just set up a charity, the Children's High Level Group, to promote children's rights, particularly disabled children in care homes in Eastern Europe. She is the global ambassador for the National Council for One-Parent Families, and patron of Maggie's Centres for cancer sufferers and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Scotland.

Her bounty extends to smaller matters, too: she has funded the making of a short film about domestic abuse, and recently donated a signed copy of Harry Potter that was sold to help improve facilities at a local GP's surgery.

For Jo Rowling, an intelligent graduate who worked for Amnesty International after university [youthful indiscretion? -BA], has never lost her social conscience. She has told interviewers that she has spent years being 'a few steps behind' her burgeoning fame and fortune, feeling caught out and overwhelmed by it.

She said: 'It just seems, well, this came to me through doing the thing I love doing most. I suppose I feel I haven't suffered enough.'

Of late, she has settled into her super-rich status, becoming more at ease with all of the nice things she can now have - hence perhaps the stay in the Hamptons.

'I'm certainly not going to complain about the money,' she said earlier this year. 'If you've literally been worrying "Will the money last until the end of the week?" you will never, ever complain about having the money.'

So what, then does she spend it on - apart from travelling and helping people? A major expense is her staff. She employs two secretaries, to deal with the 1,000 or so letters she receives a week.

She also has a very effective PA, who works full time co-ordinating her diary and her engagements.

More expensively, she is said also to pay the wages of a full-time, ex-SAS bodyguard, who gives close protection to her and her family at a cost of £150,000 a year.

Her 'day-to-day' house in Edinburgh has electric gates, high fences and a sophisticated CCTV system to deter intruders.

That makes it sound obtrusive, but the house is not ostentatious.

The home is actually two houses knocked into one - a 13-bedroom pile worth around £2 million.

Described as homely and sometimes chaotic inside, it is decorated in strong colours and the ethnic patterns that she has always loved.

She lives simply. Her office is the size of a single bedroom. She writes in the morning, makes herself a sandwich and then writes again until it is time for Jessica to return from school.

Some weekends she spends with Neil and the children at their country home in Perthshire. This property, on the banks of the River Tay, is beautiful but not particularly grand, with six bedrooms.

The final property in her portfolio is a home in Kensington, West London, worth £4.5 million. It seems more of an investment than a home.

'The point about Jo,' says a friend, 'is that she doesn't want to be flashy or ostentatious, ever. She wants to be left alone to have a normal family life.'

It seems the legacy she wants Harry Potter to leave is a charitable one: of giving and helping children in desperate need. Her own family, she hopes, will turn out to be simply normal.

One does wonder if Brooklyn, Romeo and Cruz Beckham were to meet Jessica, David and Mackenzie in 20 years' time, what they would make of each other, and of their own, very different, childhoods.
 
R

Ronley

Gypsy Nirvana said:
....well I say......Good Luck to her........sounds like a fine woman to me....

I know, She really is fantastic, Really amazing and she deserves every penny.
 
J

Jam Master Jaco

Harry Potter is a great read. The story flows smoothly, it's easy to read, and the movies rock too. :headbange
 
G

Guest

I say it's morally wrong for any British woman to have more money than the Queen

I say J.K. Rowling should be forced always to have one pence less than the Queen no matter what

that way she can learn humility and not get ideas above her station

and just to prove she means it, all profits from her future books should be delivered direct in person to Her Majesty by Ms Rowling in the form of wheel-barrow loads of Harrod's steak tartar for her corgies to gorge themselves on - that would be real justice

Yours disgustedly,


Fanny Discharge, Weston-Super-Mare
 
Last edited:

Gypsy Nirvana

Recalcitrant Reprobate -
Administrator
Veteran
.............
namkha said:
I say it's morally wrong for any British woman to have more money than the Queen

I say J.K. Rowling should be forced always to have one pence less than the Queen no matter what

that way she can learn humility and not get ideas above her station

and just to prove she means it, all profits from her future books should be delivered direct in person to Her Majesty by Miss Rowling in the form of wheel-barrow loads of Harrod's steak tartar for her corgies to gorge themselves on - that would be real justice

Yours disgustedly,

Fanny Discharge, Weston-Super-Mare

.........L.M.A.O.!.....At least J.K. earns her wedge........and does not have to tax us poor British folk to get it.....
 
M

Mr. Nevermind

namkha said:
I say it's morally wrong for any British woman to have more money than the Queen

I say J.K. Rowling should be forced always to have one pence less than the Queen no matter what

that way she can learn humility and not get ideas above her station

and just to prove she means it, all profits from her future books should be delivered direct in person to Her Majesty by Miss Rowling in the form of wheel-barrow loads of Harrod's steak tartar for her corgies to gorge themselves on - that would be real justice

Yours disgustedly,


Fanny Discharge, Weston-Super-Mare



Why should she? thats the same as saying if you make over 400K a year you should send the rest to the president of the USA since that is his salary. If the queen needs more cash then she should get off her ass and earn it. I mean what does she need money for anyway? she gets what she wants and its paid for by the people. The queen is a figure head, she doesnt do a thing . I am glad the author has sucess and doenst blow it like rappers and such









Nevermind
 
G

Guest

Mr. Nevermind! I'm horrified - you didn't just take that post literally did you?

gadzooks man!

hehehe

hey Gypsy - what does L.M.A.O. mean?

ah - I found out for myself - haha
 
Last edited:
M

Mr. Nevermind

namkha said:
Mr. Nevermind! I'm horrified - you didn't just take that post literally did you?

gadzooks man!

hehehe

hey Gypsy - what does L.M.A.O. mean?

ah - I found out for myself - haha

Actualy i did. hopefully it was a joke, and if i took it wrong i do apolagize









Nevermind
 
G

Guest

hehe very much a joke -

though no doubt stranger things have happened in Buckingham Palace... dread the thought...

one thing that does slightly worry me is just how wierd you must think us Brits are to have taken that at face value!

hahha

Namkha
 
Last edited:
M

Mr. Nevermind

namkha said:
hehe very much a joke -

though no doubt wierder things have happened in Buckingham Palace... dread the thought...

indeed, the royals are as weird as they get. Incest will do that to you. Royal family is proof of what happens when you fuck your cousins








Nevermind
 
G

Guest

yeh - it's all about preserving the reptilian genes

hahaha

I forget who the head lizard is these days now that the Queen Mum has died...

anyone remember?

Namkha

edit: I think it might be Ann Robinson, but I'm - not sure... could be she is one of those decoy lizards

watch for the forked tongue when she says "you are the weakessssst link, goodbye"

(edit edit: no need to apologise Mr. N.)
 
Last edited:
G

Guest

Its not all fun and games in the royal family cause we all can harry dont look like charles.
As for ann robinson is she not busy being manger of newcastle utd.
 

Gypsy Nirvana

Recalcitrant Reprobate -
Administrator
Veteran
Mr. Nevermind said:
indeed, the royals are as weird as they get. Incest will do that to you. Royal family is proof of what happens when you fuck your cousins
Nevermind


....I would'nt even say that they are selectively inbred....
 
M

Mr. Nevermind

Gypsy Nirvana said:
....I would'nt even say that they are selectively inbred....


Nah. no selection at all. as long as they are related they are good enough for the royals. i mean look at Camila! Would anyone in their right mind bang her on purpose? i think that police should shut down that inbred cult






Nevermind
 
G

Guest

the most disturbing thing is to look at all the stunners who were throwing themselves at Charles when he was younger

that man could have been in pussy heaven and spent the rest of his life there

which leaves us with only one plausible explanation for his extraordinary behaviour:

a geo-political lizard conspiracy dating as far back as the Sumerians

obviously,

Namkha
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top