Lord stops eldest son from taking over £85m ancestral estate due to 'lack of achievement'

A Lord has successfully stopped his son from taking over the family's £85million due to a 'lack of achievement'.

The Earl of Yarmouth, William Seymour, took his parents, the Marquess of Hertford, Henry Seymour, and the Marchioness of Hertford, Beatriz Seymour, to after they told him would not be taking over the 17th century Ragley Hall in Warwickshire as expected. Lord and Lady Hertford, as well as Lord Yarmouth's siblings - Lady Gabriella Seymour, Lord Edward Seymour and Lady Antonia Seymour - all opposed the claim, which centred around the running of the 6,000-acre ancestral estate near.

During a three-day hearing in February, the court was told that the family relationship had broken down in 2018, around the time Lord Yarmouth married his wife, the Countess of Yarmouth, Kelsey Wells. The marriage was said to have been badly received by his parents.

READ MORE:

READ MORE:

Lord Yarmouth had also started to question his father's mental capacity, the court heard, adding to the strain on ties. But Lord Hertford argued that the wedding was not the primary reason for him refusing to pass on the property to his son - instead saying it was down to his "lack of achievement" and failure to graduate university, or attain any meaningful qualifications that could help maintain the estate.

In a ruling on Monday, Judge James Brightwell said he accepted the "damaged and fractured" relationship between Lord Yarmouth and his parents and siblings was "poor". He said: "Even though the claimant maintains that this is not a family dispute or a claim about a breakdown in family relations, the claim is on any view brought against a backdrop of such a breakdown, details of which feature heavily in the evidence before the court."

The legal claim related to three settlements which form part of the estate, including farmland, residential properties and woodland - together valued at around £45 million, with Lord Yarmouth asking for the two trust corporations to be removed as trustees and replaced with an independent trustee.

In evidence for the hearing in London, Lord Yarmouth, 31, told the court his parents had led him to believe that he would take over the running of the estate at age 30, and that several land appointments had been made to him when he was younger.

But he claimed that his parents were "far from delighted" with his plans to marry Lady Yarmouth, stating that Lord Hertford said to him at the church on his wedding day: "You can still call it off and we'll send everyone home, just say no."

In his evidence, Lord Hertford - a former crossbench peer - said he did plan for his son to take over the running of the estate, but that he now did not consider him "appropriate". He added that this decision "coincides with his marriage, but Kelsey is not the main reason", claiming that his son's behaviour "started to change" before the wedding.

He said: "I am disappointed at William's lack of achievement. 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."

Lord Yarmouth asked the judge to order the removal of two trust corporations, Ragley Trust Company Ltd and Seymour Trust Company Ltd, as co-trustees of the three settlements. He also wanted the judge to replace them with an "independent professional trustee", after claiming that the current trustees "unduly deferred to or acted on" instructions from his father.

But the judge said that while it was "obvious" that Lord and Lady Hertford had shown "deep antagonism" to Lady Yarmouth and "created practical difficulties in the wedding arrangements", Lord Yarmouth was "keen to create a dispute about the way Ragley was run at a root and branch level".

He also said he did not consider the claims to be "well-founded", adding that Lord Hertford could leave the ancestral estate "to whomever he wishes".