GigaOM

After several months of agonzing over whether to sell the media empire they have controlled for more than 100 years, word this afternoon is that enough members of the Bancroft family have broken ranks with their kin to vote in favor of the $5 billion bid for Dow Jones & Co. made by Rupert Murdoch.

Mr. Murdoch, the Australian billionaire and globe-trotting media baron of News Corp. bid $60 a share for the company back in April(then more than a 60% premium). But his offer was almost immediatelg rejected by certain members of the now-sprawling Bancroft clan that extends across two continents and is led by its so-called “36-adult heirs.” The Bancrofts’ fear was that Mr. Murdoch, who is known to be heavy-handed with all his businesses, might meddle too much with the editorial integrity of their baby: The Wall Street Journal newspaper, a media property long-held in prestige for its journalistic calibre and independent voice.

The ultimate question for the Bancrofts—and a good one for all founders to ponder—*was this:*

When is it OK for a founder (or founding family) to place the virtue of their fiduciary duty above their deeply-rooted vision for the business?

(So angst-ridden was a senior Bancroft over this Hobson’s Choice that she quit her role as Trustee for her family branch to avoid placing in conflict her competing principles: the individual shareholder who wanted to vote ‘No’ on the sale; and the trustee, who would have had a duty to vote for the super-lucrative deal. Another prominent Bancroft, and fierce opponent of the sale, Leslie Hill, quit Dow Jones’ Board of Directors in protest today.)

In the last hours, Mr. Murdoch won the votes he needed from key members of “the Denver branch” of the Bancroft clan. This group reportedly angled to get Mr. Murdoch to raise his price per share further still. Mr. Murdoch refused. Instead, he is believed to have won the Denver branch’s loyalty by agreeing to pay their legal- and financial- advisor-fees, something in excess of $30 million.

This raises two additional important questions:

When does a team of founders—or their heirs—become too distanced from a business to be able to sustain the emotional attachment and committment to vision that is required to reinvest in the business again, and again, and again, over time?

And when is it OK for latter generations to say farewell to the “founding vision” for the business?

Tell us what you think.