Call us: Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

Bid to unseal Princess Margaret’s will fails

Recent Posts

Related Posts

Stowe Talks How To: Part 2

February 12, 2024

President of the Family Division Sir James Munby has rejected a bid to unseal the late Princess Margaret’s will.

The younger sister of Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Margaret died of a stroke in February 2002 at the age of 71. Her will was sealed in June of that year and its contents are not publicly known. The envelope which contains this document bears an inscription which reads:


At the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Sir James Munby explained that he had received an application to unseal it. The applicant, ‘Malika Benmusa’, set out why she wanted the document to be unsealed: she claimed her name had been changed as a child and that she believed “both names are in the will”.

In a brief and blunt judgment, the President of the Family Division declared that he had “no hesitation in concluding that [he] should strike out the applicant’s claim”. Sir James explained that the woman seeking to have the will unsealed had “not articulated any intelligible basis for her claim”.

What the woman presented as her evidence did not “assert [or] identify in any intelligible way … any link with HRH Princess Margaret or any link with her will” he said. Additionally, she had not “identified the grounds or the source or sources of the various beliefs upon which she relies” in her bid.

Sir James called the application “hopelessly defective” and rejected it outright.

Read the full judgment here.

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers based across our family law offices who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. As well as pieces from our family law solicitors, guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Contact us

As the UK's largest family law firm we understand that every case is personal.


  1. Nick Thomas-Webster says:

    This will be to do with a child she had whilst young. Held in an institution in Redhill so eventually institutionalised. Must be still alive which is why they won’t allow details to be known publicly ?

  2. Andrew says:

    The applicant who is mentioned in the judgment, who thought he was HRH’s illegitimate child (as we used to say), reminded me of “I’m Sorry, I Haven’t a Clue” and the mystery voice saying
    Mr Brown thinks he is the Queen’s nephew.
    Mr Brown thinks he is the Queen’s nephew.
    There are, it appears, a lot of them about!

  3. Andrew says:

    Yes, Nick. Of course. And NASA faked the moon landings. And Lord Lucan shot JFK from the grassy knoll. And Princess Di is on tour with Elvis and Shergar.

  4. Dave says:

    The applicant needs to take legal advice when submitting applications, got to know what information to provide and how to word it to stand any chance of the application being granted.

    Results of an independent DNA test and expert witness might be a good start (obviously).

    Anyway, with the death being that long ago, I am sure the executors of the will will have found all the heirs to the will by now.

Leave a comment

Help & advice categories


Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for advice on divorce and relationships from our lawyers, divorce coaches and relationship experts.

What type of information are you looking for?

Privacy Policy