The wife of the Earl of Yarmouth, who has been disinherited from his aristocratic family’s £85million estate, says she fears the couple will not be able to ‘meet the cost’ of their children’s private school fees after losing a bitter legal battle.
William Seymour, 31, fell out with his parents, the Marquess and Marchioness of Hertford, in 2018 when they objected to his wedding to Kelsey Wells – now Lady Yarmouth – a former director at Goldman Sachs.
He was then disinherited from the family estate when his father, Lord Hertford, concluded he was not an ‘appropriate person’ to take over the running of the 110-room Ragley Hall in Warwickshire.
Documents filed at the High Court show the spat stemmed from the ‘deep antagonism’ the marquess and marchioness displayed towards Lady Yarmouth, 39.
On the couple’s wedding day, Lord Hertford told his son ‘you can still call it off’, Lord Yarmouth claimed in a witness statement.
Lord Yarmouth expected to inherit the family estate near Alcester, including the Palladian mansion where his parents live as well as farmland and other buildings, when he turned 30.
His father also cited other factors including that he was ‘disappointed at William’s lack of achievement’ and said he did not have the ‘qualifications or experience’ to take over the family’s estate.
Lord Yarmouth decided to launch a legal action in an attempt to remove the trustees in charge of the running of the estate – including a cousin of his father and a long-standing family friend – who he felt were on the side of his parents and had ‘closed ranks’ against him.
But in a judgement handed down on Monday, Master James Brightwell dismissed his claim, ruling that the trustees had ‘acted professionally throughout and are capable of continuing to do so.’
It now means Lord Yarmouth has effectively been disinherited from the sprawling estate, including the 110-room Palladian stately mansion his parents call home.
For her part, Lady Yarmouth has called the entire affair a ‘tragedy’- not only financially, but also personally, as her husband and now also their children, Clement, five, and Jocelyn, three, having been excommunicated by the Hertfords.
She has also clarified their high-profile legal battle, which has essentially aired the family’s woes in public, was never about the inheritance, but simply a way to protect ‘uncertainty’ for their children, who are discretionary beneficiaries of the family trusts.
Previously the couple had received around £7.45million in assets and income from the trusts – but Lady Yarmouth says they have now not received any money to pay for their children’s school fees.
‘We are trying to meet that cost ourselves,’ she told The Times, pointing to her ‘entrepreneurial’ husband, who runs a business selling an award-winning elderflower liqueur called St Maur.
‘One of the things that is of principal benefit to future generations, the future of the marquessate, the senior male line, is to help and support them with their education.’
Throughout the court case, Lord Yarmouth was referred to as ‘lazy’ and an ‘entitled toff’, though his wife was keen to argue against such barbs.
In contrast he was a ‘doer’, she said. He has been getting up at four o’clock in the morning to harvest the elderflowers, bottling the liquor and selling the product at markets and festivals.
That said, there was no entirely escaping from their aristocratic background.
The Countess said she acknowledged they are ‘very privileged individuals’, but was insistent her children should not be a part of the ‘inter-generational dispute’ that has struck the family.
She added: ‘We are trying to make better than what we have received and we are trying to improve on what we have received for the future.’
In the wake of their legal defeat, the couple said they would be looking to foster reconciliation with the Hertfords, but the cracks between son and parents have been long established.
Before their marriage, he family displayed such ‘deep antagonism’ towards Lady Yarmouth, 39, that on their wedding day Lord Hertford told his son that ‘you can still call it off and we’ll send everyone home, just say no,’ according to evidence submitted by Lord Yarmouth to the High Court.
The court heard that Lord Yarmouth had expected to inherit the family’s Ragley estate in Warwickshire when he turned 30.
By the age of just 21 he had already received more than £4.2million in land and property.
‘William’s behaviour started to change before his marriage,’ the Marquess of Hertford said in a witness statement.
‘William asked me to confirm that I would hand over Ragley Hall to him on turning 30. It was like he had promised Kelsey that they would be moving into Ragley Hall, he was persistent.
‘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.’
He added: ‘The tipping point in my deliberations of passing the running of Ragley Hall to William at age 30 was a letter received from him to my wife, Lady Hertford dated 25 July 2018 questioning my mental ability to continue running Ragley Hall.
‘I do not consider William to be an appropriate person to take over the running of Ragley Hall. He has not done anything to make me change my mind.’
In his judgment, Master James Brightwell added that, in recording meetings, Lord Yarmouth was ‘looking for ammunition for a dispute’ and questioning his father’s mental ability was a ‘casus belli’ – an act or situation provoking or justifying war.
Despite losing the court case and having his family woes aired in public, Lord Yarmouth said in a statement afterwards that he was ‘disappointed’ but also ‘open to reconciliation’ with his parents.
‘My purpose has been to seek to ensure the protection of my family’s interests in the trusts, and in particular the welfare of my children as beneficiaries,’ he said.
‘I came to the court with the sincere hope of finding a fair and lasting resolution to a fraught situation.
‘As much as it is painful for both sides, my wife Kelsey and I remain open to reconciliation with my parents. Privately we have made this clear to Lord and Lady Hertford.’
He had previously told the court how the family feud had left him needing ‘professional help and counselling to deal with trauma as a consequence’.
The family can trace its roots back to Henry VIII’s third wife, Jane Seymour. Ragley Hall, in Alcester, was built in the 1680s and sits within 450 acres of landscaped gardens, 4,500 acres of farmland and 1,000 acres of woodland.
It has been occupied permanently by the Marquess and Marchioness of Hertford since the 1960s when Lord Hertford’s father made it his main residence.
The court heard it was previously the intention of Lord Hertford to allow Lord Yarmouth, his eldest son, to inherit the estate when he turned 30. However, from the time of his marriage to Lady Yarmouth, relations deteriorated to the extent that Lord Yarmouth is also now estranged from his three siblings, who also opposed his court battle to remove the trustees.
Lord and Lady Hertford have also never met their young grandsons, Clement, five, and three-year-old Jocelyn.
As part of his claim, Lord Yarmouth claimed that when he sought a more central role to the running of the estate in 2018, one employee suggested that he should start by ‘cleaning the lavatories.’
The court heard that Earl Yarmouth had also fallen out with his younger brother, Lord Edward Seymour.
Edward said: ‘Our relationship started to go downhill however when William went to Cirencester Royal Agricultural University as William met some individuals who brought out the worst in him – William became pompous and showed signs of entitlement. Flaws that have been further exacerbated since his marriage to Kelsey.’
The family feud goes further. After being invited to Lord Yarmouth’s wedding, his aunt, Lady Carolyn, the Marquess’ sister, replied calling him: ‘Little Lord Fauntleroy’.
The letter was signed off: ‘You pompous a**/t**/p***k – take your pick… Your ever-so loving aunt’.
Lord Yarmouth now runs a business selling an award-winning elderflower liqueur called St Maur.
Responding to claims that he was an entitled ‘toff’ in an interview with The Telegraph in March, Lord Yarmouth said: ‘If I am such a useless grifter then how have we made what is considered to be the world’s best floral liqueur?’