When Spencer Matthews sat down on This MorningITV Granada on March 11, 2025, he didn’t talk about his latest brand deal or his marriage to Vogue Williams. He talked about money — and why he’s refusing to give it to his three kids. "They’ll have to earn their own keep," he said plainly. No trust funds. No safety net. Just the hard way. It’s a stance that’s sparked debate across Britain, and beyond.
Why This Isn’t Just About Money
Spencer Matthews isn’t just any reality star. He’s been a fixture on Made in Chelsea since its 2011 debut, a show that turned London’s affluent West End social scene into prime-time drama. His fortune — estimated at over £1 million — came from TV fees, endorsements, and co-founding Skinny Brands Limited, the low-calorie alcohol company he launched in 2014. But here’s the twist: he’s not planning to pass any of it on.
"I don’t want them to grow up thinking life’s handed to them," Matthews told hosts Dermot O’Leary and Alison Hammond. "I’ve seen what happens when kids inherit too much too soon. They lose drive. They lose perspective."
That sentiment cuts deep in a country where generational wealth is often seen as a birthright — especially among the elite. Think of the Barclay brothers or the Cadbury heirs. For many, a trust fund isn’t just financial security — it’s identity. Matthews is rejecting that script.
The "Trust Fund Kid" Debate
OB News called his reasoning "controversial." And it is. In the UK, where private schools, family estates, and inherited property are deeply woven into social mobility, denying inheritance feels radical. But Matthews isn’t alone in this thinking.
Philanthropist and former banker Sir James Wates once said: "Inheritance is the greatest disincentive to ambition." And Matthews echoes that. He doesn’t want his children to be "trust fund kids" — a term that’s become shorthand for privilege without purpose. He wants them to work. To struggle. To build something themselves.
He didn’t say how much he’s worth. But he didn’t need to. The point isn’t the number — it’s the principle. He’s choosing character over cash.
What This Means for His Children
His three children — unnamed, ages unknown — will receive nothing directly from his estate. No offshore trusts. No family foundations. No luxury cars at 18. Just the life skills he’s teaching them now: budgeting, delayed gratification, resilience.
"I tell them every day: if you want something, save for it. Work for it," Matthews said. "If you can’t afford it, you don’t get it. Simple as that."
Psychologists warn that extreme wealth denial can backfire — leading to resentment or financial insecurity. But Matthews isn’t cutting them off entirely. He’s simply refusing to hand them a blank check. He’s funding their education, their health, their safety — just not their lifestyle.
It’s a middle path: support without spoiling. Structure without subsidy.
Is This a New Normal for Celebrities?
It’s becoming more common. In 2023, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk said he’d leave his children only "a fraction" of his fortune — enough to live on, but not enough to live off. Similar views have been voiced by former NFL star Tom Brady and actress Gwyneth Paltrow.
But Matthews is different. He’s not a Silicon Valley titan. He’s a reality TV star who made his money from being himself on camera. That makes his stance more relatable — and more jarring. If a man who built his fortune on social media drama believes his kids shouldn’t inherit, what does that say about the rest of us?
It’s not just about money. It’s about values. And for many watching, Matthews’ decision feels like a quiet rebellion against a system that rewards birth over effort.
What Happens Next?
Nothing is official yet. No will has been filed. No trusts established. Matthews hasn’t said if he’ll leave money to charity, or if his wife will handle estate planning differently. But the message is clear: his children won’t be beneficiaries of his fame.
Experts say this could spark a wave of similar decisions among UK influencers. With social media making wealth visibility the norm, more parents may feel pressured to justify their choices — not just to their kids, but to the public.
For now, Matthews is letting his actions speak. And for three young children growing up in Chelsea, that’s a lesson no trust fund could ever teach.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does this affect Spencer Matthews’ children’s future?
While Matthews won’t leave his children a direct inheritance, he’s still funding their education, healthcare, and basic needs. The goal isn’t deprivation — it’s independence. Experts suggest this approach may foster stronger work ethics, but could also create emotional strain if not paired with consistent emotional support. No details exist yet on whether they’ll receive financial literacy training or mentorship.
Why is this considered controversial in the UK?
In Britain, inherited wealth has long been tied to social status, especially among the upper-middle and elite classes. Trust funds are common in families with property, private schools, or business legacies. Denying inheritance challenges the idea that privilege should be passed down — making Matthews’ stance feel radical to some, and refreshing to others. Critics argue it ignores structural inequality; supporters say it promotes meritocracy.
Did Spencer Matthews ever mention his wife’s opinion on this?
No. Neither LADbible nor OB News reported any statement from Vogue Williams regarding the decision. While she’s been involved in their parenting publicly, her stance on estate planning remains private. This silence has led to speculation — but no confirmation — about whether she shares his views or plans her own financial arrangements for their children.
Could this decision be reversed later?
Absolutely. Estate plans are not set in stone. Matthews could amend his will, establish educational trusts, or even create conditional inheritances tied to milestones like college graduation or business success. Right now, it’s a philosophy, not a legal document. Legal experts say most people revise their wills every 3–5 years — especially after major life events like new children or financial shifts.
How does this compare to other celebrities’ approaches to inheritance?
Elon Musk plans to leave his kids just enough to work, not live off. Bruce Willis left his fortune to his children but required financial education. Meanwhile, many UK aristocrats still funnel wealth through generational trusts. Matthews stands out because he’s not a tech mogul or Hollywood icon — he’s a reality TV personality whose wealth came from visibility, not innovation. That makes his stance more accessible — and more provocative — to everyday viewers.
What impact could this have on reality TV culture?
Reality TV often glorifies wealth, luxury, and privilege. Matthews’ public refusal to pass on his fortune flips that script. It may encourage other stars to rethink how they portray family values on screen. Could we see more shows where parents teach financial responsibility instead of showing off yachts? Possibly. His move adds depth to his public persona — and could redefine what it means to be a "reality star" in the post-influencer era.
