Meet Britain's Most Eligible Batchelor

Jules wrote:I'm new here, I was in no hurry to make threads,    in fact I thought it would be many weeks or months before I made my first thread but I just had to share that news and I did not see any relevant thread to post it in.

It does ram home the fact that there are certain things money cannot buy. IMO the dead duke was the richest man in the country. (I don't rate  ''new money'' billionaires like steel magnates, or Hans Rausing  (tetra pak) or Russian satellite state billionaires.)  This is serious old money we're talking about! It appears to have always been a burden, he looked unhappy and his entire family have had the sort of illnesses that money cannot cure, sadly. He was only 63 or so.  A gentle, pleasant guy by all accounts.

Jules wrote:Is it Prince Harry? Is it heck??  

There's a new kid in town and he's worth a cool £9billion.
They have sort of similar initials.  Harry of Wales  and  Hugh of Westminster (prince and duke respectively.)

Meet baby face Hugh Grosvenor aged 25years.
 Hugh's dad tragically died of a sudden heart attack leaving behind a cool £ 9,000,000,000 fortune. RIP.

 

Jules wrote:
I'm new here, I was in no hurry to make threads,    in fact I thought it would be many weeks or months before I made my first thread but I just had to share that news and I did not see any relevant thread to post it in.

It does ram home the fact that there are certain things money cannot buy. IMO the dead duke was the richest man in the country. (I don't rate  ''new money'' billionaires like steel magnates, or Hans Rausing  (tetra pak) or Russian satellite state billionaires.)  This is serious old money we're talking about! It appears to have always been a burden, he looked unhappy and his entire family have had the sort of illnesses that money cannot cure, sadly. He was only 63 or so.  A gentle, pleasant guy by all accounts.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Jules wrote:
I'm new here, I was in no hurry to make threads,    in fact I thought it would be many weeks or months before I made my first thread but I just had to share that news and I did not see any relevant thread to post it in.

It does ram home the fact that there are certain things money cannot buy. IMO the dead duke was the richest man in the country. (I don't rate  ''new money'' billionaires like steel magnates, or Hans Rausing  (tetra pak) or Russian satellite state billionaires.)  This is serious old money we're talking about! It appears to have always been a burden, he looked unhappy and his entire family have had the sort of illnesses that money cannot cure, sadly. He was only 63 or so.  A gentle, pleasant guy by all accounts.

HIS FATHER was previously ranked the richest Brit, (and the second-richest British 'resident' -- as the #1 position was the Indian boss of the TATA corporation who spends half the year living in England..), in international rich lists...

Their family wealth would likely be more than double that of the Windsor-Mountbattens..

The father had also been described at times as "a cousin" to the Queen -- they probably meant through a couple of marriages ?        

eddie wrote:Bet he'd rather have his dad back.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Bet he'd rather have his dad back.

True,  all the money in the world cant compensate for the loss of a loved parent.

Syl wrote:Most of the reports I have read concentrate on this lads inherited vast wealth ....the death  of his father just seems to be mentioned in passing.
Sad.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:Most of the reports I have read concentrate on this lads inherited vast wealth ....the death  of his father just seems to be mentioned in passing.
Sad.

Cos his dad's phenomenal wealth is the specific reason his death is such big news.  Remove that from the equation and this death would barely make a paragraph in the local rag.  It is the sheer magnitude of his wealth that created this media buzz.

Plus several other talking points attached to it - the outdated promigeniture rules, the astonishing avoidance of inheritance tax, and the fact that the heir is a babyfaced batchelor with dubious judgement and maturity.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:

Cos his dad's phenomenal wealth is the specific reason his death is such big news.  Remove that from the equation and this death would barely make a paragraph in the local rag.  It is the sheer magnitude of his wealth that created this media buzz.

Plus several other talking points attached to it - the outdated promigeniture rules, the astonishing avoidance of inheritance tax, and the fact that the heir is a babyfaced batchelor with dubious judgement and maturity.

Yes I know why the lad is suddenly wealthy, it just seems disrespectful for anyone to die suddenly, and reports of his life and death be considered less newsworthy than the amount of dosh he leaves behind.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes I know why the lad is suddenly wealthy, it just seems disrespectful for anyone to die suddenly, and reports of his life and death be considered less newsworthy than the amount of dosh he leaves behind.

I know what you mean but this was a death from natural causes and there is not an awful lot to say about it. What else is there to say?  The sadness of bereaved family and friends is a given, it's not newsworthy to say how sad it all is, we already know it's sad.