Show Me The Money! Rupert's House.

[Ali <Ali@zymurgy.org>]

Steve Bboy said:-

<<Found this link a The Leaky Cauldron <www.the-leaky-cauldron.org>

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2003001703,00.html

>From the UK SUN tabloid newspaper (given that it's a tabloid, you can
decide how much stock you want to put in it as true.)>>

me:

I would personally take anything said by the Sun with a huge pinch of 
salt. The paper might give the flavour of a story, but their ability 
to embellish is, well, excellent.

Steve again:
<<However, much like Daniel Radcliffe's parents, Rupert parents have
quit their jobs to become Rupert's fulltime highly paid chaperones.

>From Article in SUN:
The family pal added: "His dad sold his motor supplies business
because he and Jo have devoted themselves to Rupert's career."

<snip>

At least, Daniel's mother continues to work at her old job, and is
therefore, bringing in substantial income to the family. 

<snip>

Mr. Grint has sold his automobile memorabilia business, and given the
fact that they lived in a US$300,000 home, it must have been a good
business, and probably brought in a substantial sum of money. So, it's
not like they are broke without Rupert's money, but at the same time,
Rupert's money should be going into a protected financial trust, where
his money is protected, and invested wisely and concervatively, so
that his future life and education are secured by this money. I see
this as a very negative turn of events>>

I suppose there are a few points here. The value of the Grint's house 
does not indicate that the business must have been going well. House 
prices in the South of England have gone through the roof in recent 
years. Hertfordshire is an expensive place to live, and the Grint's 
former home nothing more than "average" (not that there's nothing 
wrong with that). The car industry is having problems at the moment 
as second hand cars have dropped in value – this would almost 
certainly have had a detrimental effect on the Grint family business, 
so selling the business might have been a foresighted thing to do.

In terms of the issue of chaperoning, the Grints are almost between 
the devil and the deep blue sea. With 5 children, it is quite 
possible that Mrs Grint did not work, and certainly couldn't then 
devote all her time to just one child. Yet, if they did not chaperon 
Rupert they might not have felt that they were neglecting his needs. 
It could be that the decision to sell the business was a good one AND 
it then allowed a parent to be paid to chaperon Rupert on a full time 
basis without neglecting the other kids. I do agree that all their 
eggs are now in one basket, but who can tell what the future will 
bring.

I would feel very sorry for Rupert's siblings, and have heard that 
Emma Watson's brother now hates Harry Potter because of the effect on 
him. Daniel Radcliffe is perhaps lucky that his family can act 
relatively "normally", but then in a way, he's going to need that 
normalcy so much more (IMHO)

With regard to the property issue, minors cannot own property into 
England & Wales. Whilst property might be a good investment at the 
moment, it would have to be held in trust for Rupert. I'm sure that 
trust arrangements must have been sorted out for the kids when they 
were cast, mustn't they?

Going off at a tangent, a previous thread regarding Dan Radcliffe's 
income from the films. I remember different figures from those 
quoted.  I seem to recall that he was initially offered a low sum for 
PS/SS but Equity stepped in and he was then offered £1 million, then 
for CoS £2m. I'm sorry, I can't recall where these figures come from, 
but they do at least seem a little fairer. (So I hope that they're 
right).

Ali