I didn’t say they were greedy though
I know, but as my question as to why the daughters and not the son were called greedy (etc.) was quoted in your post, I assume it was meant as an answer to that question. Have I misunderstood?
and getting a house from your father is better than getting nothing at all.
The relevant comparison, though, is to their brother Ned Lambton, who received an undivided £12 million inheritance from their father, which is very far from receiving nothing at all.
Plus if they weren’t disabled or mentally incapacitated, I don’t see why they shouldn’t have gotten jobs and worked.
The same could be said about Ned Lambton. Indeed, it would be even more difficult in his case to justify his demand to keep the full £12 million on the basis of need, compared to his sisters' smaller claims of £1 million.
If he signed a contract making a promise to provide for them, then he should stick to it,
It seems that even what limited promises their father made, he failed to execute, according to his son-in-law:
“In my hearing, the father promised my wife the second house on the Italian estate; a very lovely house,” recalls Worsthorne. “But then he got dementia and in the end there was nothing left.”
but if he did not I don’t see why should give them anything.
It is not so much a question of whether the late Earl should have provided for his adult children in his will (on which reasonable people may differ, whether or not they condone sexism), but of whether the late Earl and current Earl were right to insist on everything being provided to the man and nothing to the women.
More importantly, do we know if there are liquid assets to give.
Apparently yes, given the previous agreement between the siblings:
Before the writ was issued, the sisters thought they had reached an agreement with their brother. Indeed, Lucinda had planned what to do with her share. “She undertook to pay for one of our grandchildren to go to boarding school and put up the money, thinking it was in the bag,” explains Worsthorne. “It was so embarrassing when the [settlement] didn’t go through and she had to tell the school she hadn’t raised the money after all.”
No one is criticizing Ned because he didn’t change the will to favor himself,
Neither have his sisters, but I expect what you mean is that Ned's behavior is treated as more acceptable because it is conforming to their late father's written will. Perhaps you are right about the beliefs behind the comments, though I note that one of the quoted posters was much less intense in his comments about a male nobleman who contested his late grandfather's will:
No one stopped her from having children, and only his wish to keep the inheritance stopped them from marrying. At the end of the day it was all about free will and personal decisions they made individually or as a couple.
Very rare
