Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the retired explorer, has been allowed to receive visits from selected friends and family following renewed scrutiny of his care arrangements. The 82-year-old was recently relocated to a specialist dementia unit by his second wife, Louise Millington-Cotes, who holds power of attorney over him.

According to sources close to the situation, Mrs Millington-Cotes had previously restricted visits, requiring those allowed access to sign non-disclosure agreements that prevented them from revealing Sir Ranulph’s location. This has led to concerns among some family members and associates about whether the restrictions and care decisions have been appropriate.

After a recent investigation prompted wider attention, Mrs Millington-Cotes began permitting certain individuals to visit Sir Ranulph, with those who have seen him confirming he is being well cared for and accompanied by a dedicated carer. Nonetheless, some family members remain worried about the limitations on contact, notably Mrs Millington-Cotes’s son, Alex Millington-Cotes, who has been excluded from visiting his stepfather.

Mr Millington-Cotes, who is estranged from his mother, has expressed fears that he may never see Sir Ranulph again. In response, he has initiated a crowdfunding campaign to finance a Court of Protection hearing. Such a hearing would review whether Mrs Millington-Cotes is acting in Sir Ranulph’s best interests and could potentially lead to broader visiting rights.

One individual close to Sir Ranulph commented that having regular visits from familiar faces is important for his well-being, suggesting that social contact can provide comfort and support for someone living with dementia. However, questions remain about the exercise of Mrs Millington-Cotes’s authority as Sir Ranulph’s legal guardian.

Attempts to obtain a comment from Mrs Millington-Cotes were made but no statement has been provided. The ongoing dispute highlights the complexities often involved in managing care for individuals with cognitive impairments and underscores the role of the Court of Protection in resolving such family disagreements.