BRYONY GORDON: Facing the consequences of your own behaviour is NOT trauma... and shouldn't be a defence against being a jerk

Dig out your smallest violin. You're going to need it when you hear the tragic, tear-jerking tale of the Earl of Yarmouth and his missing £85 million estate. If you're already caught up on the saga… well, can I apologise in advance if I re-traumatise you with the details of what must surely be 2025's saddest sob story? To recap: William Seymour, the earl in question, is facing off against his parents and siblings in a bitter court battle over who should be in control of the 400-year-old ancestral home.

As the eldest son of the Marquess and Marchioness of Hertford, 32-year-old William expected to inherit the Ragley Hall estate, in Warwickshire, comprising a Palladian mansion and 6,000 acres of working farms, woods and parkland. The Earl believed he only had to wait until his 30th birthday, in 2023, before he could take it over. After all, he had been given £4 million worth of estate land and property by the time he was 21.

Imagine his shock, then, when he found out that when his 30th ticked around mummy and daddy would not immediately hand him the keys. Documents lodged at the High Court do not show if they gave him a birthday card, or even a meal out at the local pub, as was the case for my 30th birthday. What they do show is that being cut off by his parents had 'upended' the Earl's life, leaving him needing 'professional help and counselling to deal with trauma as a consequence'.

To compound matters, poor William and his wife allege they were kicked out of their cottage on the estate with just a few days' notice, and that trustees refused to release funds to pay their two children's private school fees. I do hate it when that happens, don't you?. The Earl has now gone to the High Court in London in an attempt to dismantle the structure that controls the family trusts, and remove the trustees, whom the Earl claims have sided with his parents.

William Seymour, the Earl of Yarmouth, is facing off against his parents and siblings in a bitter court battle over who should be in control of the 400-year-old ancestral home. In response, Lord and Lady Hertford say they fell out with their son in the run up to his wedding to his wife Kelsey, now Countess of Yarmouth, a former Goldman Sachs banker. They claim their son sent 'hostile and inflammatory' emails 'questioning' his father's 'mental capacity', and that he's behaved in an 'unreasonable and vindictive manner'.

The judge has now finished hearing the case, and will give his ruling at a later date. But whatever he decides, I think we can all be grateful to the Seymour family for this much-needed dose of perspective. On a serious note, this ridiculous tale of overblown self-pity has got me thinking about the word 'trauma', which is bandied around a lot nowadays. As someone who campaigns on mental illness and addiction, I'm all for us discussing upsetting emotional experiences. Under the right therapeutic conditions, it's a powerful way to move on with your life. I applaud anyone who tackles their emotional baggage so they're no longer defined by the bad things that have happened to them.

But people like the Earl of Yarmouth, who carry their trauma around as a sort of designer handbag, seemingly using it to deflect things in life that they don't like? Well that, I am afraid, is not such a good thing. No doubt he's upset, but 'trauma' is not a tool for manipulation. It's important to say this, because every time someone uses a word like 'trauma' to try to get their own way, it makes life harder for people who genuinely need help.

I love the fact we're now talking about 'small t trauma' – meaning events that aren't life-threatening but which still cause harm, such as bullying or emotional neglect. But let us be clear: experiencing the consequences of your own behaviour is not trauma. It's cause and effect. It may well be upsetting if your parents cut you off as they've taken offence at your habit of questioning their sanity. But you can't step on people's toes and then be surprised when they retaliate.

We need to be careful that in the admirable drive to better understand trauma, it doesn't end up being redefined entirely, so it simply becomes a defence against behaving like a jerk. As my colleague Katie Hind reported last week, celebrities are co-opting the mental health cause as a new (far cheaper) way of gagging the Press. Simply say that reporting on your bad behaviour might damage your mental wellbeing, and you never need be held accountable for your actions again.

Yet I will repeat this until I am blue in the face: mental illness and trauma might be explanations for questionable behaviour, but they're not excuses for it. Similarly, if every child in the land took family matters to court on the grounds that they've been traumatised by their parents, the judicial system would collapse. As Philip Larkin put it: 'They f*** you up, your mum and dad/ They may not mean to, but they do.'.