Bid to unseal royal will is ‘complete nonsense’

Family Law|April 19th 2017

Sir James Munby has dismissed another attempt to unseal the will of the late Princess Margaret as “complete nonsense”.

The President of the Family Division has previously rejected a similar bid from the same woman. Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Sir James noted that the latest one included “a closely-spaced one page statement” and “a copy of a death certificate of a woman, who was born in 1904 and died in 1997” who the applicant claimed was her late aunt.

In the statement presented to Sir James, the applicant insisted she was “the last child of the late princess Margret [sic]” and “the heir to the throne of England”. She wrote that this was “why so much trouble has been taken to cover up [her] identity”.

The applicant alleged that the woman whose death certificate she had included was Princess Margaret’s older sister and had raised her. She went on to claim that when she was three years old, her royal mother had been “frightened by her own family member [sic] to give [her] up for adoption”.

Sir James Munby explained that the claims in this application were not possible as Princess Margaret’s mother, the late Queen Mother, was born in 1900. He said it was obvious that “a woman born in 1904 could not have been, as the applicant asserts, her mother’s elder sister” if her mother was indeed the late Princess.

The President of the Family Division had “no hesitation” in striking out the application and concluded that it was “a farrago of delusional nonsense”.

Read the judgment here.

Photo by dconvertini via Flickr under a Creative Commons licence.

Share This Post...


  1. Brian says:

    It gets a fair hearing unlike my relative who is trying to tidy up areas of dispute of a non working Child Arrangements Order gets torn a new arsehole by the judge in directions for taking matters to court, because the only word mum is the best one for maximum inconvenience with minimum effort – “No”… A CAO which ain’t working because someone is playing loophole Mary…not like they’re dished out like smarties! Instead of having the top judge hearing nonsense, why can’t he sit in county courts and show little Hitler district judges how it’s done? Judge has gone on a course of action which makes no work for mum and maximum effort for dad AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REASONS FOR THE CAO FAILING – BECAUSE MUM JUST DOESN’T WANT TO CONTRIBUTE BECAUSE SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH THE ORDER DOES NOT WORK IN HER FAVOUR, SO IT’S JUST SUBTLE DEFIANCE. GIVE CRAP LISTINGS LIKE FAKE RELATIVES LIKE THAT TO THE OFFICE JUNIOR AND GET REAL JUSTICE OUT TO THE PEOPLE. REAL JUSTICE IS ALWAYS OUT OF REACH OF THE MASSES. ORDINARY FOLK GET JUSTICE LITE MASS PRODUCED JUSTICE LIKE A CONVEYOR BELT! I READ JUDGMENT BY THE TOP JUDGES AND I ONLY WISH THEY WERE ACCESSIBLE TO THE REST OF THE SYSTEM INSTEAD OF GETTING HENRY T FORD MASS JUDGMENTS DELIVERED BY ARROGANT NOBODIES WHO TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID MAKING A DECISION. IT’S CALLED DECISION SHYNESS THE ART OF NOT COMMITTING ONESELF SO THAT ONE CAN CLAIM TO HAVE WORKED, EARNED THEIR PAY BUT NOT ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING FOR IT INCASE ONE HAS GOT IT WRONG! It stems from the inability to make any genuine attempt to define “financial need” in judicial MCA 1973 s25 “financial need” internal guidelines, right the way down to the coal face where the MCA 1973 s25 fpr process is designed so that a decision with ownership by the judiciary is taken at the very last opportunity and every effort is taken to avoid making one by trying to get the parties to make their own agreement.
    (*Comment edited – please see our moderation policy here).

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy