At 34 years old, Daniel Radcliffe enjoys a fortune of at least US$110 million (CA$150 million). For what? Because he personified Harry Potter. He says he gives a lot of it to charity and that’s good, but he’s still rolling in gold. In 2023, he sold his condo in New York for $5 million to buy a nicer one for $6.5 million.
The teen-actor-magician received $1 million for the first Harry Potter film, $3 million for the second, $6 million, $11 million, $14 million and $24 million for the next four. And for the final chapter in two feature films, he received a nice $50 million.
He starred in other films afterward, proving that he is a good actor, but nothing more. The high fee he receives each time is more linked to his name and his legendary role than to his talent.
Courtesy photo
Thanks to whom?
In summary, Daniel Radcliffe is very rich because an unemployed single mother, victim of domestic violence, courageously put on paper a beautiful story drawn entirely from her imagination. Then she took her pilgrim’s staff to go and be told no by publishers one after the other (the mistake!).
His determination allowed him to convince one to publish the first volume of the Harry Potter stories. You know the rest: books sold by the millions in all languages, films, promotional items, a huge success.
- Listen to the Dutrizac – Dumont meeting via QUB :
Without JK Rowling and without Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe would at best be an ordinary actor making a good living and perhaps a high school drama teacher. In both cases, he would not be sitting on a treasure of $110 million which grows every day.
In a magazine interview The Atlantic, Daniel Radcliffe distances himself from author JK Rowling. He says he is disappointed by her lack of empathy. For what? Because Ms. Rowling did not embrace the entirety of gender ideology. The British media labeled her as an anti-trans person.
Rowling
Archive photo, AFP
The accusation that kills
You won’t find a quote from JK Rowling rejecting the right of trans people to live in peace and security. His point boils down to two things. Disappearing the notion of woman represents a step backwards compared to decades of struggles for the advancement of women. She therefore rejects designations such as “person with a uterus” rather than “woman”.
She also questioned the age at which it is reasonable for an adolescent to take irreversible actions regarding sex change. From this point of view, the latest developments in science tend to prove him right.
Getty Images via AFP
Daniel Radcliffe doesn’t have to agree with her. No more than his political opinions, it’s personal. He only has to plead everyone’s right to their opinion and respect.
He preferred to bite the hand that fed him to take refuge in the comfortable woke chapel.
