Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the renowned British explorer, has been described by a regulatory body as being “unlawfully deprived of his liberty” after being placed in a series of care homes under conditions that have raised significant legal and ethical concerns. The case, which spans several months and multiple care facilities in the UK, has sparked debate over the application and oversight of lasting powers of attorney (LPA) and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).
Sir Ranulph, aged 82, has not been publicly seen for more than two years. According to reports, his second wife, Louise Millington-Cotes, 59, has exercised lasting power of attorney granted in 2024 to manage his care. Friends and family have expressed alarm over their limited access to him, as Mrs. Millington-Cotes has imposed strict visitor restrictions, including non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), and has withheld his whereabouts from most acquaintances. Since early this year, only Mrs. Millington-Cotes and their daughter Elizabeth reportedly know his location.
Concerns intensified after the owner of one care home in Wales, where Sir Ranulph was placed for seven weeks earlier this year, raised multiple safeguarding issues with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). The care home owner reported that the necessary DoLS authorizations were not secured, despite repeated reminders. Care Inspectorate Wales confirmed in January that Sir Ranulph was under continuous supervision, not free to leave, and lacked capacity to consent to his care, making the absence of a proper DoLS authorization unlawful.
In addition, the care home owner highlighted irregularities in medication management. Mrs. Millington-Cotes provided all medication, including prescriptions issued in her own name rather than Sir Ranulph's, and did not register him with a local general practitioner. Staff at the care home resisted instructions from Mrs. Millington-Cotes to administer medication contrary to written instructions. A “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (DNACPR) document provided was reportedly incomplete, complicating medical care. The owner also removed an oxygen cylinder from Sir Ranulph’s room that was not supplied by a licensed clinical provider.
Authorities were further troubled by the secrecy surrounding Sir Ranulph’s identity and movements. His wife reportedly requested he be registered under an alias for security reasons, claiming concerns over threats from extremists. She demanded that he wear disguises outdoors and imposed restrictions on communication with visitors. These conditions led to tension between care providers and Mrs. Millington-Cotes, including a breakdown in relations when the care home sought to register Sir Ranulph under his real name for proper medical treatment.
After Sir Ranulph’s relocation to a care facility in Cheshire, police were contacted to verify his welfare, but staff neither confirmed nor denied his presence there when officers visited in mid-September. His stepson, Alexander Millington-Cotes, has been told he is not at the facility and is currently crowdfunding a legal challenge against his mother’s LPA.
The dispute has also attracted attention from members of Sir Ranulph’s inner circle. Several friends who attempted to gain access last year were asked to sign NDAs, and a former sister-in-law briefly stayed at a care home in London to investigate. She was later denied further visits after her identity was revealed.
The OPG, which oversees lasting powers of attorney, indicated it could not investigate the situation as Mrs. Millington-Cotes’s authority was legally granted before Sir Ranulph entered care. Care Inspectorate Wales emphasized its commitment to protecting individuals in social care but declined to comment on specific cases.
Sir Ranulph Fiennes has publicly acknowledged a Parkinson’s diagnosis in recent years but last appeared in a prerecorded video at a Royal Geographical Society event in October 2024, citing ill health for his absence. The ongoing dispute has raised broader concerns about the potential for misuse of LPAs and the challenges of safeguarding vulnerable individuals when family members control their care arrangements.