In England and Wales, once probate is granted, a Will usually becomes a public document. It is open to inspection as part of the broader system of transparency underpinning succession law. This openness is so embedded in probate practice that most lawyers never question it. It is the mechanism that allows beneficiaries to check their entitlements. Creditors to assert claims. Family members to verify a testator’s final intentions.
Within this transparent system, the power to seal a Will is a seldom-used but significant exercise of judicial discretion. It is the power that can significantly impact privacy and confidentiality in probate law. Used sparingly; this power is invoked in exceptional circumstances it protects Wills not just from public curiosity but from all inspection.
For a century, sealing has been synonymous with royal Wills—to protect constitutional dignity and private royal affairs. But in recent years, the courts have begun to use this power differently. They aim to protect the lives and safety of private citizens. These individuals have circumstances that demand confidentiality.
The result is a quiet but significant evolution.
The long tradition of royal wills and the emerging jurisprudence around non-royal sealed wills culminating in Johnson v His Majesty’s Attorney-General [2025] EWHC 1943 (Ch). This decision marks a significant shift in how courts approach sealing Wills and balancing transparency with confidentiality.
The starting point is simple: proved wills are public documents (Senior Courts Act 1981, s 124). But Rule 58 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 permits the Court to direct that a Will should not be open for inspection if such inspection would be:
- undesirable, or
- otherwise inappropriate.
The threshold is deliberately modest; the courts have repeatedly emphasised that Rule 58 “is not an especially high hurdle”. Yet sealing a Will remains rare. It is exceptional because open justice is the norm.
Royal Wills: A Century of Secrecy and Constitutional Habit
The Origin Story: Prince Francis of Teck (1910)
The tradition of sealing royal wills began in 1910. Queen Mary persuaded the Court to seal her brother Prince Francis’s Will. This was reportedly to prevent scandal arising from private bequests to his mistress. This practice was established, rooted in constitutional considerations and privacy.
When Prince Francis died in October 1910, his 1902 Will revealed that he had left everything to his mistress, Lady Kilmorey. His estate was worth £23,154 gross (about £1.9 million in 2022 terms), with net personalty of £670. The bequest included the Cambridge emeralds, part of the Teck family’s pearl necklace, and a jewel given to him by his godfather, Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria. Francis explicitly stated that all jewellery inherited from his mother was to pass to Lady Kilmorey, expressing the hope—but not imposing any legal obligation—that she would reset the emeralds to her liking and ultimately leave the items back to the royal family.
To recover the family heirlooms, Francis’s sister, Queen Mary, negotiated with Lady Kilmorey and, in 1911, repurchased the emeralds for £10,000; Mary later wore them at the Delhi Durbar. When Lady Kilmorey died in 1920, she returned the Emperor’s jewel to the royal family, but left the rest of her estate to her own relatives.
Concerned about a potential scandal arising from Francis’s relationship and the terms of the Will, the President of the Probate Division ordered the Will sealed in 1911, becoming the standard practice for subsequent royal wills. The document stayed sealed for more than a century, until a 2021 court challenge prompted the creation of a review mechanism. After review, Francis’s Will—along with eight other royal wills—was unsealed and released for public inspection, with transcripts and summaries later published.
A Separate Practice for Royalty
In the matter of His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor (deceased), the Monarch’s unique constitutional position and the intense public interest in royal affairs make publication inappropriate.
Edward VIII: Copyright and Archival Integrity
In 2017, the Royal Archives sought access to Edward VIII’s Will to determine ownership of copyright in his unpublished works. In the matter of His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor (deceased), Oliver Urquhart Irvine the librarian and assistant keeper of the Queen’s Archives wrote to the District Probate Registry in Leeds formally requesting a copy of the Duke of Windsor’s Will and codicil for research purposes.
The Royal Archives holds many originals and copies of probate records for past royal family members. However, Irvine submitted the Duke of Windsor’s Will represents a gap
‘in our holdings and therefore in our knowledge’,
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, allowed a limited opening, the making of a single copy, and immediate resealing of the original Will.
Marking the first time the Court opened a sealed royal Will for reasons unrelated to public inspection.
Princess Margaret & the Queen Mother: Transparency of Process
In Brown v HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and others [2007] EWHC 1607 (Fam), [2007] WTLR 1129, and, by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ, of the Court of Appeal, in Brown v Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and others [2008] EWCA Civ 56, [2008] 1 WLR 2327. At the heart of this case is a simple but essential question: when should a Will—usually a public document—be kept private? The answer is surprisingly complicated, especially when royal wills are involved.
What was the dispute about?
A former President of the Family Division had sealed some royal wills, meaning they weren’t available for public inspection, and judicial interpretation of those sealing orders allowed inspection only by someone with a “special interest”. The appellant claimed an interest, asserting that he was Princess Margaret’s illegitimate son. The President rejected that claim and struck out his challenge entirely.
But the appellant also wanted to do something broader: challenge the original orders that sealed the Wills.
If successful, this would not just let the appellant inspect the Wills —it would reopen them to the entire public. So the real issue became:
Can someone challenge the original decision to seal a Will? Which is especially relevant for a royal Will, particularly if the process for sealing wasn’t fully transparent?
Why the Court allowed the challenge to continue
The Court of Appeal drew an important distinction. In some areas of law, including enforcement of public rights or seeking judicial review, only certain people can bring challenges; sometimes, only a challenge from the Attorney General is allowed. So why didn’t that rule apply here?
Because there is no law saying only the Attorney General can ask for access to a Will. The sealing process used for these royal wills wasn’t transparent. Without a straightforward process, there are no clear limits on who can challenge a sealing order. So, the Court held it would be wrong to stop the appellant from raising the issue.
If the appellant couldn’t challenge the sealing orders, no one ever could. That would mean no higher court could scrutinise decisions to seal royal wills. And that, the Court said, would be unacceptable. The case also raises broader questions about openness. Traditionally, wills become public after a grant of probate. The idea is that transparency promotes accountability exposes a gap:
Why exactly are wills public?
The Court noted: The argument that publicity ensures that an executor carries out a testator’s wishes lacks strong authority. The President had instead referred to a general principle of openness.
Are privacy concerns ever strong enough to override that?
Modern concerns include beneficiaries’ privacy. Additionally, focus on the rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Applications for secrecy are increasing. So the case flagged a need to reassess the balance between openness and privacy in contemporary society.
Royal wills: a special category?
The Court acknowledged a long-standing practice. The Sovereign’s Will does not need to be proved by a grant of probate (In the Goods of His late Majesty King George III, deceased (1822) 1 ADD 255, 162 ER 89). Another reference is found in In the Goods of His late Majesty King George III (1862) 3SW & TR 199, 164 ER 1250, a practice that does not apply to any other member of the Royal Family whose Wills are administered under the ordinary probate rules.
Under rule 58 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR) the Court can direct that the Will or another document filed with the grant of probate shall not be open to inspection. The public has, in the President’s words, an “insatiable curiosity” about royal lives. That may justify some level of special treatment. But the judges emphasised that:
Any special process must itself be examined transparently by the current President, with full access to relevant background material.
And importantly: Not every detail of the royal-wills procedure needs to become public—but the President must first understand it.
The Court of Appeal didn’t decide whether they should open the royal wills. Instead, it held that the Court should not have struck out the appellant’s challenge. There are serious, legitimate questions in play:
What is the purpose of public access to wills?
When is sealing justified?
What counts as a “special interest” in seeing a sealed Will?
Should royal wills be treated differently—and if so, why and how?
These are issues of public importance. Until they are fully considered and resolved, the Court cannot dismiss the appellant’s challenge as hopeless.
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that, although the Wills remain sealed, the sealing orders themselves are open to challenge. Transparency applies to the process, if not to the document.
Prince Philip (2021): The 90-Year Review Rule
In Re: The Will of His late Royal Highness The Prince Philip. It involved the Duke of Edinburgh [2021] EWHC 77 (Fam). The Court sealed the Will for 90 years, creating a structured, reviewable mechanism for future unsealing. A media challenge by The Guardian failed. However, the Court of Appeal emphasised that open justice still demands meaningful public judgments explaining decisions to sit in private.
In 2010, Sir Mark Potter formed a working group. They aimed to create a ‘fair and efficient procedure’ for publishing and disclosing wills. Sir Mark said the current rules were ‘far from user-friendly’ for practitioners and the public and ‘provide little guidance’. The committee examined the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987. These rules offer the procedure for obtaining a grant of probate or administration. This applies where there is no dispute concerning the deceased’s estate.
In the matter of His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor (deceased), Sir James Munby remarked on the Royal Archives copies of the Will. He said it would be ‘absurd’ to deny them. He also noted it would be ‘absurd’ to deny them the codicil. This is about someone who
‘was born a royal prince. He died a royal duke. In his time, he was His Majesty the King’.
Munby said that each of Irvine’s ‘compelling’ reasons justified the disclosure ruling that delivery of one copy of the Will to Irvine was warranted, and the document was then resealed. Munby stressed that he had not opened the envelope. He had not read the Will or codicil. He didn’t have ‘any idea as to their contents’.
On 16 September 2021, the President of the Family Division delivered judgment in Re: The Will of His late Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh [2021] EWHC 77 (Fam). The Court approved the executor’s request to seal the Will and to omit the estate’s value from the public grant. Both the hearing and the substantive application were conducted in private, in line with the long-established approach designed to protect the privacy of the Sovereign and senior members of the Royal Family.
The judgment formalised a new procedural practice: in all future cases, the Court will prepare a closed judgment capturing any confidential material considered, ensuring transparency about the process while preventing public speculation.
The Court confirmed a 90-year sealing period for Royal wills. After that time, an internal review to determine whether the Will should be unsealed, with the Court weighing personal privacy against legitimate historical interest.The ruling does not create new law; instead, it reaffirms and refines the existing legal and constitutional framework governing the confidentiality of Royal Wills.
To promote openness about the system itself, the Court also intends to publish a list of sealed Royal wills, but emphasised that this should not be seen as an invitation for unsealing applications. Such applications face stringent thresholds and are ordinarily dismissed summarily unless brought by someone with a direct private interest.
Annex 1 to that judgment—detailing the royal wills currently held by the President—was released on 24 November 2021.
On 16 February 2023, the President’s Office issued a formal document titled The Procedure for Unsealing 90-year-old Royal Wills. The court moved to increase transparency around the long-standing practice of sealing Royal wills by ordering the publication of a list of all wills currently under seal and introducing a formal 90-year time limit for future cases. After this period, an archivist will inspect the will and a private review will determine whether unsealing is appropriate.
Under this new process, nine original wills (together with their envelopes and seals) were transferred to the Royal Archives for preservation and academic study, with copies lodged at the Probate Registry:
- Prince Francis Joseph Leopold Frederick of Teck
- Alexander William George, Duke of Fife
- Prince Maurice Victor Donald of Battenberg
- Dowager Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
- Lord Leopold Louis Mountbatten
- Helen Frederica Augusta, Duchess of Albany
- Princess Helena Augusta Victoria, Princess Christian
- Princess Frederica Sophia Maria Henrietta Amelia Theresa of Great Britain
- Princess Louise Victoria Alexandra Dagmar, Princess Royal
These wills are now accessible online
The Court also directed that each sealing application must now include a closed judgment recording any confidential matters considered, helping to prevent speculation while preserving the privacy of the Royal Family.
The Court published these measures to reaffirm the need for special protections for the Sovereign and senior Royals while also acknowledging the public’s interest in understanding how the system operates. By setting a clear timeframe, providing a public list, and codifying procedural safeguards, the Court aimed to clarify and formalise existing conventions rather than establish new legal principles, ensuring that the balance between privacy and transparency is maintained.
Beyond Royalty: The Rise of Sealed Wills for Private Citizens
For decades, sealing was synonymous with royalty. That changed dramatically in Johnson v HM Attorney-General [2025] EWHC 1943 (Ch) with the High Court delivering the first reasoned judgment sealing a non-royal Will in modern legal history.
The deceased was Frank Cowley, formerly Freddie Scappaticci, the man widely alleged to have been “Stakeknife”—the British Army’s highest-level agent inside the Provisional IRA during the Troubles. The deceased was said to have acted as an informant against the Provisional IRA—an allegation he consistently rejected. Throughout his life, he received ongoing death threats, and when he died in 2023, the UK government still had not confirmed or denied the claims about his past. Although the deceased had appointed his former solicitors as executors, they renounced probate.
An individual identifying himself only as Michael Johnson brought the application to act as legal personal representative of the estate, on the condition the Court order the Will sealed and withhold his real identity. Submitting that public access to the Will under s 124 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and r 58 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR) would expose those named in it—including himself—to grave danger.
Section 124 of the 1981 Act requires original wills and probate documents under the High Court’s control to be stored in designated places and, subject to the High Court’s direction and the probate rules, made available for inspection. Rule 58 of the NCPR creates an exception, allowing a district judge or registrar to withhold a Will from inspection where doing so would be “undesirable or inappropriate”.
Relying on this exception, the applicant sought orders sealing the Will for 70 years and prohibiting any inspection without the permission of the Chancellor of the High Court. The Attorney-General supported the application, and the matter proceeded in private.
In determining the application, the EWHC applied the principles set out in the judgment concerning the Will of the late Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. That judgment was published, although the Will itself remained sealed.
The Court revisited the usual reasons favouring public access to a Will:
- promoting respect for the deceased’s intentions and preventing fraud;
- enabling beneficiaries to be notified or traced;
- satisfying historical or journalistic interest;
- and alerting creditors, holders of other testamentary documents, or those with potential claims.
Here, the first two considerations carried little weight because the applicant intended to engage solicitors to properly administer the estate.
There was also no public interest in the contents of the Will, which was routine in form.
Given the extensive publicity surrounding the death, the Court found it unlikely that creditors, potential beneficiaries, or others with an interest would be unaware of the death. Accordingly, none of the usual arguments for public inspection applied.
The Court ordered that the Will be sealed for 70 years as the Court confirmed the threshold for finding inspection “undesirable or inappropriate” under r 58 in Re: The Will of His late Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh [2021] EWHC 77 (Fam) as not particularly high.
The Court also issued ancillary directions allowing a grant of administration to issue without annexing the Will and permitting the inheritance tax return to be lodged without providing HMRC with a copy of the Will.
After media reports in 2003 identified him as a top informant, Cowley:
- relocated repeatedly
- lived under injunctions protecting his identity
- changed his name multiple times
- endured persistent death threats
- faced ongoing civil claims alleging torture, false imprisonment, and complicity in murder
Operation Kenova’s 2024 Interim Report concluded he “could and should have been prosecuted”. Nevertheless, it preserved the government’s “neither confirm nor deny” stance.
At the time of his death in 2023, he faced 16 civil claims in Northern Ireland.
The Application Under Rule 58
Cowley’s executor, Michael Johnson, agreed to manage the estate only if the Court sealed the Will, submitting publication of:
- addresses,
- names of beneficiaries, or
- Cowley’s true identity
Would expose him and others to serious and immediate risk of violent reprisals.
Arguments Before the Court
For the applicant:
- Public inspection would put lives at risk.
- Articles 2, 3, and 8 ECHR were engaged.
- None of the usual justifications for probate transparency applied.
- The Will was a standard document with no substantive public interest.
For the Attorney General (representing the public interest):
- The public interest in openness was minimal.
- Any journalistic curiosity will not outweigh the risks under Articles 2 and 3.
- Endangering the applicant by disclosure.
The Decision: A Sealed Will Outside the Royal Context
Chancellor Sir Julian Flaux granted the application, finding:
“…this is the first application for the sealing of a Will under Rule 58. It is apart from the cases of Royal wills.”
He held that:
- The deceased estate comfortably met the Rule 58 threshold.
- Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR were engaged;
- The risks of retaliation were real and ongoing; and
- Personal safety outweighs the principles of Open justice.
The Court ordered the Will to be sealed for 70 years. This order prohibits its annexation to the grant of administration. It restricts inspection without the Chancellor’s consent. It also prevents HMRC from requiring production of the Will.
Johnson v HM Attorney-General [2025] EWHC 1943 (Ch) now stands as the leading authority on sealed wills outside the royal tradition.
Other Non-Royal Sealed Wills: A Hidden Category
Though Johnson is the first reasoned decision, courts have, in practice, sealed (or partially sealed) wills where:
1. Vulnerable individuals or survivors of violence are at risk
Disclosure might reveal:
- children’s locations
- safe houses
- private medical histories
- identities of domestic violence survivors
2. Witnesses and protected persons need anonymity
Where testators or beneficiaries are part of:
- witness protection programmes
- undercover operations
- high-risk prosecutions
3. National security is implicated
Where the Will contains:
- intelligence-related identities
- operational details
- links to classified activities
4. Sensitive commercial or digital information is included
Modern wills contain:
- passwords
- access codes
- asset locations
The Court can’t casually place these documents in the public domain.
Most of these cases stay unreported, precisely because the sealing prevents disclosure.
5. Alternatives to Full Sealing
Courts increasingly use flexible measures short of total secrecy, including:
- redaction
- partial sealing
- restricted inspection orders
- temporary sealing
- dual versions (public & private)
These allow courts to tailor privacy to the specific risk.
The Thread Binding Royal and Non-Royal Sealed Wills
Whether the Will belongs to a prince or a paramilitary figure, the Court applies the same statutory test:
Would public inspection be undesirable or otherwise inappropriate?
For royal wills, “undesirable” reflects constitutional dignity.
For Cowley’s Will, it reflected a risk of lethal violence.
In each case, the court balances:
- open justice
- transparency
- creditors’ interests
- human rights
- personal safety
- the public interest
And in the most exceptional cases, privacy prevails.
Sealed Wills and Open Justice: A Tension That Will Never Fully Resolve
Cases like Re Prince Philip and Johnson v AG show that open justice remains a powerful norm. The courts now routinely publish detailed public judgments explaining the holding of hearings in private.
Representing an evolution: secrecy of documents no longer means secrecy of process. Yet sealed Wills challenge the modern instinct for transparency, highlighting:
- The fragility of private life
- The dangers of public disclosure
- the complexities of modern identity
- The role of the judiciary as protector as well as arbiter
Reminding us that probate is not merely administrative—it is deeply human.
Conclusion: The Quiet Power of the Seal
Sealed Wills occupy a curious and compelling corner of succession law. For the Royal Family, sealing reflects constitutional status and tradition. For private individuals like Frank Cowley, it is a matter of life and death.
What links them is the Court’s careful balancing act: open justice on one side, privacy and safety on the other. In both domains, the law shows a rare blend of pragmatism and humanity.
A Will is both a public declaration and a profoundly personal document. When those two roles collide, the Court becomes the guardian of dignity, safety, and justice. And sometimes, the only answer is a seal.