Earl of Yarmouth in family row over £85m estate
12 February 2025, 15:16 | Updated: 13 February 2025, 14:37
The Earl of Yarmouth is locked in a court battle with his parents over the future of their £85 million ancestral estate.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
William Seymour, 32, had expected to inherit 400-year-old Ragley Hall but was told in 2018 it would not be handed down.
Lord Yarmouth is now seeking to dismantle trusts that control a large part of the estate and have them replaced with independent trustees.
The Earl claimed that questions over the future of the estate made him seek 'professional help and counselling to deal with trauma as a consequence,’ the High Court heard.
Lawyers for the Marquess and Marchioness of Hertford and William’s three siblings want the trusts left undisturbed.
Tim Sherwin, barrister for the two family trusts, claimed Lord Yarmouth had sparked conflict with his father by initially raising the topic of his succession as the eldest son and heir.
“[Lord Hertford] says he was disappointed with William’s lack of achievements, and that the tipping point in their falling out was a letter from William sent on July 25 2018 to [Lady Hertford] questioning [Lord Hertford’s] mental capacity”, Mr Sherwin said.
The family’s barrister Richard Dew said the earl had shown 'little interest in the estate or the trusts' until 2017.
Mr Dew said that the earl's actions had caused him relationship with the trustees to break down - including 'surreptitiously' recording meetings.
The trustees running the family trusts, The Ragley Trust Company and Seymour Trust Company, deny any bias or wrongdoing.
Andrew Wilkinson, acting for William Seymour, Earl of Yarmouth, said: “William Seymour is not suing his parents, nor is he contesting his father’s decision not to pass the running of the hall to him either now or when he dies.
“The rest of the estate sits within a number of family trusts, of which William is a potential beneficiary, alongside his young children. He is seeking the trustees’ removal on numerous grounds – including the failure to act impartially, fairly and disinterestedly between beneficiaries – and replace them with independent, impartial and professional trustees.”
An earlier version of this article contained inaccuracies that LBC is happy to correct.
