A LORD stopped his eldest son from taking over his £85million ancestral estate because of his “lack of achievement”.
The Earl of Yarmouth William Seymour – the eldest of three children – was left out of the fortune after a fallout.
4
4
He took High Court action against his family over the estate, which included the 400-year-old family seat Ragley Hall, in Warwickshire.
The court heard that while he held a “very earnest belief” that the trustees failed in their duties in the way Ragley was run, it was unfounded.
The judge said the bad relationship between William and his parents wasn’t enough to remove the trustees.
Ragley estate, which is 6,500-acres, includes a 110-room mansion, farms, a sprawling woods, and hundreds of acres of parkland.
It has been in the Seymour Family for about 400 years, and has connections to Jane Seymour, Henry VIII’s third wife.
The Earl of Yarmouth has been embroiled in the public spat with his family since 2018.
The 31-year-old complained that his parents had led him to believe he would take over the running of the estate once he hit 30.
William also claimed his parents weren’t happy he wanted to marry former Goldman Sachs banker Lady Yarmouth, Kelsey Wells.
The court previously heard that William, who was worth £4million at 21, had not been interested in the estate until he met his wife Kelsey.
After their marriage, William began complaining about how the estate was being run and argued his wife was being shown “disrespect” for not being invited to the trustee meeting.
His father, Lord Hertford, told the court he had planned for his son to take over the estate but changed his mind – believing he was no longer “appropriate” for the job.
He said William and Kelsey marrying was not the “main reason” for the decision, but rather his son’s “lack of achievement”.
In evidence, he said: “I am proud of the fact that he went to college but made a mistake at university and didn’t graduate.
“William has not followed a profession or obtained qualifications or experience to take over the running of Ragley Hall.”
The judge ruled that Lord and Lady Hertford had obviously shown “deep antagonism” towards their daughter-in-law.
However, the judge said that the son’s dispute as to the way Ragley is run was not well-founded.
4
4
