comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser

This is just like magic!

JK Rowling’s Children Once Again Make Us Seethe with Jealousy That We’re Not Them

by Alanna Bennett | 11:00 am, July 25th, 2012


I, like many in my generation, grew up desperately wishing J.K. Rowling was a parent of mine. Who better in the world to sit on the side of your bed and tell you bedtime stories? To console you that you haven’t gotten your Hogwarts letter yet? (Hey Hogwarts, is 21 too old or?). Nobody. Nobody would be better at those parental responsibilities. This is proven once again when Rowling (or “Jo,” as I like to call her when I pretend to know her) periodically does something that makes us long for a reality in which we grew up under her watch in Edinburgh. This time it has to do with a Hogwarts-inspired treat for her children.

The treat in question? Two treehouse structures to be built in the backyard of their Barnton home, these things are basically little boxes of magic and wonder. According to Digital Spy they are set to feature “spiral staircases, turrets, balconies, nature boxes and a rope bridge connection” and are going to be approximately 40ft tall. The construction plans were revealed when Rowling’s husband, Dr. Neil Murray, applied for planning permission to build the tree houses for their children, ages 7, 9, and 18.

It was revealed this year that Jo has actually given away so much money (a staggering $160 million) to charity in her time as Richest Author Who Ever Breathed that she is actually no longer a billionaire, so we are perfectly OK with reports of her splurging the rest of her fortune however she likes. But may we suggest something, Jo? Perhaps the purchase of a castle in Scotland to perhaps turn into Hogwarts? Please? Maybe? I’ll take that as a maybe.

As Jo herself said at the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 premiere last year, “Hogwarts will always be there to welcome you home.” And sometimes bits of it will literally be in your backyard.

For further proof that Rowling would be the best person to perch on your bed and give you parental advice, I turn to Exhibit B (Exhibit A being the Potter legacy itself), her 2009 Harvard Commencement Address:

(via Digital Spy)

TAGS: | | | |


  • Anonymous

    “she is actually no longer a billionaire”

    That’ll change.  Either after the next book, or if she just sits still for a bit and lets the miracle of compound interest do its own brand of magic.

  • Anonymous

    A person who can manage to give away more than 10 percent of a billion dollars like that… well. It’s really the height of cynicism to suggest that they can’t possibly actually be interested in helping people instead of accumulating wealth.

    I mean, I know. I am that cynical most the time. But… 160 million dollars. To charity.

    Please don’t pour condescending cheap cynicism all over my awe. Thank you.

  • http://twitter.com/yeah_its_me Bri Lance

    Well… helping people and accumulating wealth aren’t inherently opposites, you know?  (It depends on how you accumulate said wealth, I suppose, but writing a globally-beloved book series seems like a pretty fair way.)  

    Why can’t she be interested in both?

  • Anonymous

    I missed it.  When did I say giving ten percent of her wealth to charity was bad?  Or not awesome?

    All I said was that she will indeed regain those riches, either by her work, or the wonders of the banking system. 

    So we need not worry about her not being a billionaire.

    I’d have tossed a bit of benefit of the doubt in there to cover yourself in case you were mistaken.

    I thought a Bannister always hedges his bets.

  • Life Lessons

    I love you, JK. :) 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=115201761 Corrie Byrne

    *sobs* she’s just so wonderful. 

  • Anonymous

    A) Bannisters don’t hedge bets. Usually they hedge stairs.

    B) because it damned well implies she’s going to sit still and not give anything more away–and sounds a whole lot like ‘well, the showy giving-away stage is over, back to one-percenters as usual.’ Connontation, and all that.

X