How an episode of Succession sparked Rupert Murdoch’s bitter family feud over control of his media empire

Murdoch’s efforts to ensure his eldest son’s dominance over the empire were dealt a heavy blow in court

Reality imitated art in the Murdoch family last year when an episode of HBO’s Succession triggered a real-life reckoning over the future of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.

The acclaimed drama, which culminates with a right-wing media tycoon’s family grappling with the fallout of his death, reportedly prompted Murdoch’s children to reassess their own father’s succession plan.

In sealed testimony delivered in Reno, Nevada, in September, Murdoch and his four eldest children—Lachlan, James, Elisabeth, and Prudence—discussed how the episode spurred a flurry of private conversations.

According to court documents obtained by The New York Times, the children began devising a public-relations strategy for their father’s eventual death after watching the fictional portrayal of chaos erupting within Logan Roy’s media dynasty.

The episode inspired Elisabeth Murdoch’s representative to the family trust, Mark Devereux, to write a “‘Succession’ memo.” The document, aimed at avoiding a real-life parallel to the show’s turmoil, marked the beginning of what would become a deeply contentious family feud.

Rupert Murdoch, center, and his wife Elena Zhukova Murdoch arrive at the court in September (AP)

Murdoch, 93, had sought to ensure his eldest son Lachlan’s dominance over the empire by altering the Murdoch Family Trust to grant him “permanent” and “exclusive” control. The trust, which holds eight voting shares—four controlled by Murdoch and four shared equally among his eldest children—was designed to divide control evenly after the patriarch’s death.

However, Murdoch’s efforts to shift voting power away from his more moderate children, James, Elisabeth, and Prudence, culminated in a legal challenge. Nevada commissioner Edmund J. Gorman Jr. ultimately blocked the changes, describing them as a “carefully crafted charade” and accusing Murdoch of acting in “bad faith.”

Adam Streisand, Mr Murdoch’s lawyer, confirmed they intend to appeal the decision handed down by the Nevada court.

Lachlan Murdoch, center, and his wife Sarah arrive at the court in September (AP)

The dispute is not believed to revolve around financial inheritance, as Mr Murdoch’s plans would not reduce the wealth allocated to his children. Instead, the proposed changes would have shifted voting power away from his less conservative offspring, in what many see as an attempt to secure a right-wing agenda across the family’s influential media holdings.

The legal battle underscores growing tensions within the Murdoch family over the direction of the media empire, which spans several continents and includes powerful outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. The court’s decision marks a significant setback for Mr Murdoch’s vision of a Lachlan-led future, raising questions about the long-term unity of the dynasty.

Prudence Murdoch arrives at the court for hearing in September (REUTERS)

The future of Murdoch’s sprawling media empire, which includes Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and UK outlets such as The Sun and The Times, has captivated public attention in recent years. The drama even served as partial inspiration for the hit series.

When Murdoch announced his retirement last September, he appeared to resolve the long-standing question of succession by naming his eldest son, Lachlan, as chairman of News Corp and chief executive of Fox Corp. However, Murdoch’s subsequent efforts to entrench Lachlan’s position—ensuring his siblings could not challenge his authority—have sparked a bitter legal battle.

Murdoch’s youngest daughters, Chloe and Grace, have no voting rights but hold equal equity stakes in the trust.

Elisabeth Murdoch arrives at the court in September (AP)

James Murdoch arrives at the court in September (REUTERS)

In a statement, James, Elisabeth, and Prudence welcomed the ruling, expressing hope that it would allow the family to focus on “strengthening and rebuilding relationships.” The trio’s more moderate political leanings stand in sharp contrast to their father and Lachlan’s right-wing stance, fueling speculation that the empire could shift editorially if control becomes shared.

According to sealed documents obtained by The New York Times, Murdoch had warned that a lack of consensus among his heirs could lead to a “reorientation of editorial policy and content,” potentially diluting the companies’ conservative legacy.

Despite Murdoch’s intentions, the legal battle has amplified divisions within the family. James Murdoch, once considered a frontrunner for leadership, has long clashed with Lachlan over politics. Their working relationship broke down during Donald Trump’s presidency, as James voiced concerns over Fox News’s favourable coverage of Trump. He later resigned from the News Corp board in 2020, citing editorial differences.

Rupert Murdoch accompanied by his sons James (right) and Lachlan (left) in 2016 (John Stillwell/PA) (PA Archive)

Murdoch, who is worth an estimated $17bn (£13.8bn) according to Forbes, spent 70 years building his global media empire. However, his retirement has done little to quiet the family drama. While Lachlan has emerged as his chosen heir, the fight to reshape the trust has drawn public scrutiny and deepened rifts among his children.

For now, the court’s decision marks a significant setback for Murdoch’s plans. The outcome leaves the door open for his more moderate offspring to influence the empire’s strategic direction—potentially steering it away from its staunchly conservative roots.

The Independent has approached Rupert Murdoch for comment.