I don't know that we can draw that conclusion from this fiasco. People like Buckley do not write a will in a whimsical fashion; they put it together with the input of skilled attorneys, trust officers, investment advisors, etc. Everyone works on it. We do not know whether it was written more than eight years ago--that is, before the child was born.
But think of this: if a large sum of money had been left to the little boy, that money would immediately go into the control of his mother, who could then use it against Christopher Buckley. William Buckley would then in a sense be giving this woman ammunition to use against his own son. Would that make sense?
The course of wisdom would normally be to leave the money to Christopher and trust that Christopher would find the best way to take care of his son, presumably when the boy reaches 18 or 21, and Mom is no longer an issue. But giving money outright to very young children is rarely a good idea. The best thing for this child would be a trust to be administered by a disinterested person, perhaps the trust officer at the Buckleys' bank.
By all accounts this unfortunate child's mother is a grasping harpy. Until I hear otherwise I'll assume the best of both fathers, since our society is generally so anti-father.
WB specifically disinherited the child and said that he considered the "so-called" Jonathan to have predeceased him (in other words, WB regarded him as dead). How would you feel if your grandfather said that about you? And how would you feel, as this child's father, if your own father - your child's grandfather - had said that? No wonder CB is screwed up on this one.
“The best thing for this child would be a trust to be administered by a disinterested person, perhaps the trust officer at the Buckleys’ bank.”
Why didn’t WFB go ahead and set up a trust for this grandchild that he would inherit when he was 25 or so? That would have been the decent thing to do.