The reason why Mick Jagger’s children won’t get a cent of his multimillion dollar fortune

Even though Sir Mick Jagger is one of the most well-known rock stars in the world and has amassed enormous money, he has recently seemed to imply that he will not be transferring his enormous wealth to his offspring.

Since the Rolling Stones’ 1962 London formation, the 80-year-old leader has been a part of the music industry.

The group has since put out 122 singles, 31 studio albums, and 77 music videos. After all of this, the group has sold more than 200 million records worldwide and has been named by Billboard as the second-greatest musician of all time (after The Beatles).

They’ve been together for an incredible 61 years, making them one of the longest-running musical ensembles ever!

Thus, it should come as no surprise that the band members have made a lot of money. Jagger too.

But as he recently stated in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, that doesn’t imply his kids will automatically become wealthy.

The father-of-eight informed the publication that, contrary to recent trends among well-known musicians, he currently has no plans to sell the band’s post-1971 catalog. This procedure essentially involves a musician selling the copyright to song recordings, or both, depending on the terms of the agreement.

Performers that have sold the rights to their music, such as Bob Dylan and Katy Perry, have made multimillion dollar deals. Bob Dylan made a whopping $300 million by selling Universal Music his whole discography, and it has been alleged that Dolly Parton wants to follow suit.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Jagger stated that he would not be giving his children any money from The Rolling Stones’ music catalog sale. “The kids can live comfortably without $500 million. Come on, he urged.

However, if a deal is struck, Jagger would rather see the funds donated to a worthy cause. You might make a difference in the world, he said.

The singer of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” is married to five different women and has eight children total, ages six to fifty-two. Born in 1970 to Jagger and his then-partner Marsha Hunt, the oldest is 52-year-old Karis.

During Jagger’s relationship with Bianca Jagger, to whom he was married from 1971 until 1978, another daughter, 51-year-old Jade, was born.

Actress Jerry Hall, who dated Jagger from 1977 to 1999, was the girlfriend of the musician. Together, the two had four children: Elizabeth, 39, and Georgia May, 31, as well as James, 38, and Gabriel, 25.

Lucas, 24, is Jagger’s eighth child and was born during his relationship with model Luciana Gimenez Morad. Then, in 2016, Jagger’s current partner Melanie Hamrick, a former ballerina and choreographer, gave birth to Deveraux, his youngest child, who is six years old.

Oh my god. That’s a sizable family, so there are plenty of individuals to divide an enormous fortune among!

King Charles’ First Official Portrait Deemed Inappropriate

In a dramatic unveiling that has left the public and critics buzzing, King Charles III revealed his first official portrait since ascending to the throne, and reactions have been anything but tepid. As debates rage on social media and in art circles, it is clear that King Charles’ portrait is destined to be one of the most talked-about royal artworks in recent history.

The unveiling

Recently, King Charles III personally unveiled a new portrait of himself at Buckingham Palace, the first such portrait since his coronation. The Royal Family’s Instagram account shared an exclusive video of the unveiling, featuring the king himself presenting the artwork.

This significant new work will ultimately be displayed in Drapers’ Hall in London, adding to its historical art collection and offering the public a glimpse of the monarch’s regal presence.

There was an ongoing debate in the comments.

The unveiling sparked a heated debate in the comments section on the Royal Family’s Instagram post and other social media sites. Opinions were sharply divided, with some users harshly criticizing the artwork. Comments ranged from “That is hideous” and “Without sounding rude, this is the worst royal portrait I’ve ever seen” to “100% thought this was satire.”

One critic remarked, “The face is good, the rest is appalling,” while another noted, “I would have loved this if it was any other color than red. He really captured the essence of him in the face, but the harshness of the red doesn’t match the softness of his expression.”

Despite the criticism, there were also voices of appreciation, such as “A lovely portrait of King Charles! I love the way the muted background draws attention to his face!” The mixed reactions highlight the polarizing nature of the portrait and the strong emotions it has evoked among the public.

The artist

https://brightside.me/articles/king-charles-reveals-first-portrait-of-himself-since-the-coronation-causing-stir-818961/?utm_source=5_minute_crafts_usa_fb&utm_medium=square_cards&utm_campaign=1st_comment_links&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2mmAUUWo3nXKx3BO4Kopp3IRPFhLzL08nN_dEwYUxZfsysHOsJIA-0aiU_aem_AabliMYykGKQyXWaEFEXOH1_aNA4IPf_ZsAzhJChTo2YCrPc7xz6Wa_NjhnYKgpTBIHzKmN3CfaIuuCwaW5W16Te

Jonathan Yeo, a prominent figure in the world of figurative painting, has earned widespread acclaim for his unique blend of traditional and experimental portraiture. Yeo’s distinctive approach involves a deep engagement with his subjects, allowing him to capture their essence beyond mere physical appearance.

His recent portrait of King Charles III epitomizes this philosophy. Yeo explained, “As a portrait artist, you get this unique opportunity to spend time with and get to know a subject, so I wanted to minimize the visual distractions and allow people to connect with the human being underneath.”

The meaning of the portrait.

A particularly striking element of Yeo’s portrait is the inclusion of a butterfly. This detail serves multiple purposes, both symbolic and compositional. Yeo elaborated, “Primarily a symbol of the beauty and precariousness of nature, it highlights the environmental causes the King has championed most of his life and certainly long before they became a mainstream conversation.”

The butterfly also provides a visual contrast to the uniform, softening the portrayal and adding layers of meaning. “In the context of art history, a butterfly often symbolizes metamorphosis and rebirth, paralleling the King’s transition from Prince to monarch during the period the portrait was created,” Yeo noted, further emphasizing the transformative phase in King Charles’s life.

Yeo expressed his gratitude and honor for being commissioned to create such a significant portrait. “It was a privilege and pleasure to have been commissioned by The Drapers’ Company to paint this portrait of His Majesty The King, the first to be unveiled since his Coronation.”

Yeo’s approach to portraiture aims to encapsulate the life experiences and humanity etched into his subjects’ faces. “I do my best to capture the life experiences and humanity etched into any individual sitter’s face, and I hope that is what I have achieved in this portrait,” he explained.

The challenge of portraying a figure as complex and significant as King Charles III was substantial, but one that Yeo found immensely rewarding. “To try and capture that for His Majesty The King, who occupies such a unique role, was both a tremendous professional challenge, and one which I thoroughly enjoyed and am immensely grateful for,” he concluded. The portrait, destined for Drapers’ Hall in London, stands as a testament to both the artist’s skill and the monarch’s enduring legacy.

Discover the lesser-known facets of King Charles III’s life in our compelling article, “8 Things About King Charles III That Will Allow Us to Know Him More Closely.” Dive beyond the regal exterior to uncover intimate details about his passions, personal experiences, and unique quirks.

Preview photo credit Kin Cheung / Associated Press / East News, theroyalfamily / Instagramjonathanyeo / Instagram

Related Posts

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*