The Real-Life Succession: Rupert Murdoch Tried to Rewrite His Irrevocable Trust. His Kids Fought Back.
If you've watched HBO's Succession, this story is going to sound familiar.
An aging media billionaire builds a global empire. His adult children spend decades maneuvering for his approval—and the chance to succeed him. Dad picks a favorite. The favorite changes. Politics gets mixed with business. Siblings form alliances, break them, and whisper about why the others can't be trusted.
And hanging over everything is one question: Who gets control when Dad is gone?
Rupert Murdoch spent more than seventy years building Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, The Times of London, and a media empire spanning the globe. Eventually, someone else has to run it.
Decades earlier, Rupert created an irrevocable estate plan laying out how that would happen.
His four oldest children—Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan and James—would share control after his death. By 2023, Rupert had changed his mind. He wanted Lachlan in charge. But Rupert had already agreed that he couldn't simply change the deal.
So at 92, he embarked on a secret effort to use a limited amendment provision in his irrevocable trust to rewrite his children's succession rights. His other children found out. They fought him.
After a secret trial, a Nevada probate commissioner found that Rupert and Lachlan had acted in “bad faith” and called their effort a “carefully crafted charade.”
Rupert lost. But unlike Logan Roy, Rupert lived long enough to negotiate another ending. The price: approximately $1.1 billion apiece to three of his children.
The Divorce That Created the Real-Life Succession
The story begins in 1999, when Rupert divorced his second wife, Anna Murdoch, after more than thirty years of marriage. Anna wanted their children's future interests protected. The divorce settlement ultimately produced an irrevocable trust structure governing succession to the Murdoch family's media holdings. Rupert kept control during his lifetime. After his death, voting control would be shared equally among his four oldest children: Prudence. Elisabeth. Lachlan. James.
One child. One vote.
That became especially important because Rupert was about to start another family. Less than three weeks after his divorce was finalized, he married Wendi Deng. They later had two daughters, Grace and Chloe.
Grace and Chloe eventually received equal economic interests in the family's wealth. They did not receive the same voting rights. Control remained with the four older children. And here's where the Succession comparison gets almost absurdly on point.
Logan Roy Had the Same Problem
In Succession, Logan's divorce from Caroline gives their children governance rights involving Waystar Royco. Those rights become a recurring obstacle when Logan wants complete freedom to control the company. Rupert's real-life divorce had a similar effect. Anna's settlement gave the children enforceable rights over the future control of the Murdoch empire.
Rupert couldn't simply take those rights back later. That wasn't an accident. It was the deal. Rupert gave up some future control as part of his divorce. More than twenty years later, the exact contingency Anna had protected against happened: Rupert changed his mind.
Why Lachlan?
By then, Lachlan and James represented very different futures for the Murdoch empire. James had increasingly broken with the political and editorial direction of his father's companies. He criticized the family's Australian media outlets over climate coverage and resigned from News Corp's board in 2020, citing disagreements over editorial content and strategy. Lachlan remained much more closely aligned with Rupert. That worried Rupert because James didn't need control by himself. He needed two siblings.
If James, Elisabeth and Prudence voted together after Rupert's death, they would hold three of four votes. They could remove Lachlan and potentially take the companies—including Fox News—in a different direction. Rupert increasingly wanted the conservative editorial identity he had built to survive him. Lachlan represented continuity.
There was only one problem: Rupert's own estate plan gave Lachlan one vote out of four.
Plan A: Buy Them Out
The obvious solution was to buy Prudence, Elisabeth and James out. After Disney's approximately $71 billion acquisition of much of 21st Century Fox closed in 2019, Rupert encouraged Lachlan to purchase his siblings' interests. They were apparently willing to talk. They couldn't agree on price.
Accounts differ on the precise numbers, but Lachlan reportedly offered only about 50–60% of market value, with one reconstruction putting the collective offer at approximately $1.3 billion.
His siblings wanted more. Lachlan wouldn't pay it. Plan A failed.
So Rupert's advisers developed Plan B.
Plan B: Find a Way Around the Irrevocable Trust
The trust was irrevocable. Rupert nevertheless retained limited authority to make certain amendments—including changes intended to benefit the beneficiaries and keep the trust functioning as circumstances changed. What he could not simply do was rewrite the fundamental succession bargain: Four children. Four votes.
So Rupert's team developed a workaround. The argument was essentially this: Lachlan's sole control would make Fox and News Corp more stable. Stability would preserve their value. Preserving value would benefit the beneficiaries.
Therefore, stripping the other children of their future voting power could itself be characterized as an amendment for their benefit. They called the plan: “Project Family Harmony.” The irony gets worse from here.
The Secret Trust Fight
Rupert pursued the amendment largely outside public view. The Nevada proceeding used anonymous “Doe” designations. Records were sealed. The trial was closed. Major news organizations went to court trying to gain access.
For a while, we knew more about Logan Roy's fictional succession plan than Rupert Murdoch's real one. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, the Murdochs were behaving increasingly like the Roys.
Lachlan vs. James
Rupert viewed James as the biggest threat to Lachlan's succession. According to findings that later became public, Lachlan helped reinforce that fear. When information about the family trust appeared in reporting by Financial Times journalist Alex Barker, suspicion fell on James.
At trial, however, Lachlan admitted he had no proof James was responsible. Then came The Successor, Paddy Manning's unauthorized biography of Lachlan. Lachlan told Rupert that James or his associates had served as sources. Again, according to the court: No proof.
Someone close to Lachlan had, however, spoken extensively with Manning. It was Siobhan McKenna, one of Lachlan's own advisers. She reportedly provided more than 14 hours of interviews and follow-up correspondence—with Lachlan's authorization.
Commissioner Edmund Gorman later found:
“The evidence demonstrates that Lachlan Murdoch falsely told his father, without proof, that James Murdoch or his associates were sources for The Successor.”
Lachlan also failed to tell Rupert about McKenna's involvement. The commissioner criticized his “lack of candor.” Kendall, Roman and Shiv would have understood the strategy immediately. The preferred successor was helping convince Dad that his rival couldn't be trusted. Except this wasn't an HBO writers' room. It was evidence in a trust proceeding.
The Court Calls It a “Carefully Crafted Charade”
After the September 2024 trial, Commissioner Gorman issued a 96-page decision. Rupert and Lachlan lost. He found they had acted in bad faith and called Project Family Harmony a:
“carefully crafted charade.” The legal problem was straightforward. Rupert had limited amendment powers. He tried to use those powers as a back door to make a material change to rights protected by the irrevocable trust.
The court concluded he couldn't. And that is why the 1999 divorce matters so much.
Limiting Rupert was the point. Anna had negotiated protections for the children. Rupert agreed that after his death, the four older children would share control. Twenty-plus years later, Rupert preferred a different successor. But Anna wasn't across the negotiating table anymore. The deal remained. Rupert changed his mind. The trust didn't.
Why Would Anyone Want a Trust That Can't Be Changed?
Because sometimes certainty is exactly what you're buying. Imagine a married couple creates an estate plan for their children. One spouse dies. Years later, the survivor remarries someone who has children of their own. If the surviving spouse remains completely free to rewrite everything, the couple's original estate could eventually pass to the new spouse—and ultimately to the new spouse's children.The children from the original marriage could receive nothing.
One solution is to make some or all of the trust irrevocable when the first spouse dies. The surviving spouse may still retain substantial flexibility—investment powers, trustee provisions, perhaps the ability to respond to changes in tax law. But they can't necessarily rewrite who ultimately receives the deceased spouse's property.
That's the trade:
Flexibility for the survivor. Certainty for the deceased spouse.
Rupert's situation arose from divorce rather than death, but the principle is similar. He agreed to limits on his future control. When he later wanted out of the bargain, the limits held.
Rupert Loses—So He Returns to Plan A
There was still one lawful way to get his children's rights back:
Buy them.
In September 2025, the family settled. Prudence received approximately $1.1 billion.
Elisabeth received approximately $1.1 billion. James received approximately $1.1 billion.
About $3.3 billion altogether. That wasn't $3.3 billion disappearing from the family.
It was a transfer of value within the family.
The three siblings surrendered their interests in the structure controlling Fox and News Corp.
In return, they received enormous liquidity. Rupert and Lachlan got what Project Family Harmony couldn't legally accomplish: Lachlan's uncontested control.
This time, however, the other beneficiaries agreed.
They Wanted a Clean Break
The settlement didn't merely remove the three siblings from the trust. It was designed to keep them from coming back. Prudence, Elisabeth and James agreed to dispose of their remaining personal holdings and accepted a long-term standstill restricting efforts to reacquire interests or rebuild influence over the companies.
That makes sense.
Imagine paying someone $1.1 billion to give up voting rights you're worried about—only to let them use that money to buy their way back in. The siblings got billions.Lachlan got certainty.
Why Would Anyone Want a Trust That Can't Be Changed?
Because sometimes certainty is exactly what you're buying. Imagine a married couple creates an estate plan for their children. One spouse dies. Years later, the survivor remarries someone who has children of their own. If the surviving spouse remains completely free to rewrite everything, the couple's original estate could eventually pass to the new spouse—and ultimately to the new spouse's children. The children from the original marriage could receive nothing.
One solution is to make some or all of the trust irrevocable when the first spouse dies. The surviving spouse may still retain substantial flexibility—investment powers, trustee provisions, perhaps the ability to respond to changes in tax law. But they can't necessarily rewrite who ultimately receives the deceased spouse's property.
That's the trade: Flexibility for the survivor. Certainty for the deceased spouse.
Rupert's situation arose from divorce rather than death, but the principle is similar. He agreed to limits on his future control. When he later wanted out of the bargain, the limits held.
Rupert Loses—So He Returns to Plan A
There was still one lawful way to get his children's rights back: Buy them. In September 2025, the family settled.
Prudence received approximately $1.1 billion. Elisabeth received approximately $1.1 billion. James received approximately $1.1 billion. About $3.3 billion altogether. That wasn't $3.3 billion disappearing from the family. It was a transfer of value within the family.
The three siblings surrendered their interests in the structure controlling Fox and News Corp.
In return, they received enormous liquidity. Rupert and Lachlan got what Project Family Harmony couldn't legally accomplish: Lachlan's uncontested control. This time, however, the other beneficiaries agreed.
And They Wanted a Clean Break
The settlement didn't merely remove the three siblings from the trust. It was designed to keep them from coming back. Prudence, Elisabeth and James agreed to dispose of their remaining personal holdings and accepted a long-term standstill restricting efforts to reacquire interests or rebuild influence over the companies. That makes sense.
Imagine paying someone $1.1 billion to give up voting rights you're worried about—only to let them use that money to buy their way back in. The siblings got billions. Lachlan got certainty.
Lachlan Finally Gets the Empire
The old structure was dismantled. New trusts were established benefiting Lachlan, Grace and Chloe. Those trusts now hold the remaining family interests, including approximately 36% of Fox's Class B voting shares and 33% of News Corp's Class B voting shares.
But the important question isn't how many shares they own. It's who votes them. Lachlan. The new structure gives him control through a managing director he appoints and can replace, with the arrangement extending through 2050. Rupert finally got the succession plan he wanted. He just couldn't impose it through the irrevocable trust. The rights of Prudence, Elisabeth and James had to be bought.
We've Seen This Before: The Buss Family
If you've followed our Afterlives of the Rich and the Famous series, the underlying problem should sound familiar.
The Buss family: Jerry Buss left his children economic interests in the Los Angeles Lakers.
But the trust also had to answer a different question: Who controls the team? That distinction ultimately helped produce litigation among the Buss siblings. The Murdoch version involves more money, politics and sibling backstabbing.
The estate-planning question is the same:
Do you want your children to share the value of the family business?
Do you also want them to share control?
Those aren't the same decision.
“Equal” Doesn't Answer Everything
Parents regularly tell estate-planning attorneys: “I want everything equal.” Equal what? Imagine a mother builds a successful company and has three children. One daughter has worked beside her for twenty years and effectively runs the business. Her two siblings chose careers elsewhere. Mom can leave all three children one-third of the economic value.
That doesn't necessarily mean all three should have equal authority to hire the CEO, set salaries, sell the company, borrow money or determine distributions. Maybe she wants the daughter who actually runs the company to control it. Maybe she wants all three children to vote equally. Maybe she wants an independent board.
There isn't one correct answer. The important thing is making the decision before the children have to fight about it themselves.
The Real Lesson of Succession
Succession worked because beneath the private jets, presidential candidates and billions of dollars was a very ordinary family problem: An aging parent couldn't let go. The children wanted different things. Nobody trusted anybody.
The Murdochs had something the Roys often lacked: an irrevocable agreement establishing the rules. Rupert made that agreement in 1999. By 2023, he wanted another deal. He tried to change it. His children stopped him.
Eventually, he went back to the negotiating table and transferred approximately $3.3 billion of value to Prudence, Elisabeth and James in exchange for their exit. Lachlan got control. The numbers are extraordinary. The planning problem isn't.
Sometimes an estate plan should remain flexible. Sometimes certainty matters more. And sometimes the entire point of the plan is ensuring that even the person who created it can't change the deal later. Rupert changed his mind. The trust didn't.
Afterlives of the Rich and the Famous | The Law Office of Rodono & Haydt
Estate planning for a family business requires answering two different questions:
Who receives the value?
Who receives the control?
Married couples and blended families should consider another:
After the first spouse dies, should the survivor remain free to rewrite the plan—or should some decisions become irrevocable?
Those choices can determine whether an estate plan survives remarriage, changing relationships and family conflict.
At The Law Offices of Rodono & Haydt, we help California families make those decisions before they become disputes—and represent trustees and beneficiaries when those disputes end up in court.
Comments