The Earl of Yarmouth, William Seymour, 32, complained that his parents had led him to believe he would take over the running of the estate once he turned 30, but failed to deliver

Ultimately he demanded his father hand over control of the trusts, leading to an ugly public spat and long-running legal battle in the courts

William also claimed his parents weren’t happy he wanted to marry former Goldman Sachs banker Lady Yarmouth, Kelsey Wells

William Seymour, the Earl of Yarmouth and the eldest of three children, was left out of the fortune after a fallout

His father, Lord Hertford, 66, claimed that he cut his son out of the family’s $113,718 million [£85 million], inheritance over his ‘lack of achievement’

Earlier in the trial the court heard William, who was worth $5.36million, [£4million], at 21, had shown no interest in the estate until he met his wife Kelsey Wells

Post the marriage, he “started to assert himself”, requesting financial information about the estate, attending management meetings.

He felt his wife was disrespected when she was invited to meetings of the trustees

Ultimately he demanded his father hand over control of the trusts, leading to an ugly public spat and long-running legal battle in the courts*

William Seymour [right, the Earl of Yarmouth, UK, lost his bid for control of his family’s nearly $114 million [£85m] estate after being cut from family fortune with dad disappointed by son’s ‘lack of achievement’.

A British high court today ruled against the eldest son of an aristocratic family in fight where he was claiming control his family its vast ancestral estate. be taken from his father and handed over to him.
Lord Hertford stopped his eldest son from taking over his $114 million [£85million], ancestral estate because of his “lack of achievement”.
The plaintiff, Earl of Yarmouth William Seymour, 32, the eldest of four children of the current Lord Hertford, claims he was left out of the family fortune after a fallout with his father.
The young Earl has been in court trying to wrest control of the estate, which included the 400-year-old family seat Ragley Hall, in Warwickshire, from the long standing trustees.
The 6,500-acre estate which has connections to Jane Seymour, the third wife of King Henry VIII, has been in the Seymour Family dating back 400 years.
Lord Hertford has said that his relationship with his son went downhill after the latter sent ‘hostile’ emails claiming his dad was unfit to run the estate – the tottering relationship with family worsened after Lord Yarmouth sent an email to his mother in suggesting his father was ‘incapable’.
Attorneys representing Lord and Lady Hertford as well as William Seymour’s three siblings say he has behaved in an “unreasonable and vindictive” manner, and want the trusts left undisturbed, while those running the family trusts, the Ragley Trust Company Ltd and Seymour Trust Company Ltd, deny bias against William.
The family’s lawyer told the court that whereas the estranged son held a “very earnest belief” that the trustees failed in their duties in the way Ragley was run, those fears were unfounded.

The Earl lost bid for estate after being cut from family fortune with his father disappointed by son’s ‘lack of achievement’. The Seymour family seat at Ragley Estate which is 6,500-acres, includes a 110-room mansion, [photo], farms, a sprawling woods, and hundreds of acres of parkland

The Earl of Yarmouth has been embroiled in the public spat with his family since 2018 over Ragley estate, which includes a 110-room mansion, farms, a sprawling woods, and hundreds of acres of parkland, has been in the Seymour Family for about 400 years, and has connections to Jane Seymour, Henry VIII’s third wife.
The Earl’s father, Lord Hertford, 66, told the High Court that in the run-up to the wedding in 2018, their relationship “deteriorated very sharply” after Lord Yarmouth asked his father to hand over control of the house when he turned 30 in 2023.
The judge said the bad relationship between William and his parents wasn’t enough to remove the trustees.

Lord Hertford cut off his son’s inheritance ostensibly because he is disappointed in his son’s “lack of achievement.” However, the Earl claims he was cut off by the family over his independence in choosing his spouse. He claims his relationship with his son dipped after he sent ‘hostile’ emails claiming his dad was unfit to run the estate

William Seymour has been involved in a very public legal tussle with his parents, the Marquess and Marchioness of Hertford, since 2018, when he married Kelsey Wells, a former Goldman Sachs banker who is now the Countess of Yarmouth.
William, now 32, complained that his parents had led him to believe he would take over the running of the estate once he hit 30. He also claimed his parents weren’t happy he wanted to marry former Goldman Sachs banker Lady Yarmouth, Kelsey Wells. He told the court he has been left “traumatized and needing therapy” after a row with his dad cut him out of the huge family fortune.
The court previously heard that William, who was worth $5.36million, [£4million], by the age of 21, had previously shown no interest in the estate until he met his wife Kelsey.
After his marriage to Wells, the oldest Seymour offspring 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.

The Earl of Yarmouth, William Seymour [left], claimed his family didn’t approve of his investment banker wife Kelsey Wells [right], led to the disinheritance, adding that he’s had to seek professional help after being told he would not be handed the estate

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”.
Citing one such instance Lord Hertford said: “I am proud of the fact that he, [William], 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 son’s castigation of the way Ragley is run was not well-founded, the judge said.