Ranulph Fiennes - care home restrictions, DoLS ?

[Mixymaxymoxy]

Ranulph Fiennes - does anyone understand what’s happening with him? I’ve read several articles that say his wife has LPA, has put him in a care home / several care homes under false names and against his will, and various friends / relatives are outraged about how he’s being treated. He has Parkinson’s. It’s not clear whether he has capacity.

The article talks about excessive restrictions being placed on his freedom, preventing him from seeing friends etc. The phrase in one article is ‘arrangements for his care were subsequently found to amount to an unauthorised deprivation of his liberty.’ How does that come about? It doesn’t say how these ‘arrangements’ come to be in place? is it just his wife telling the home not to let anyone visit him? Telling them that he has to wear a disguise on walks etc? I’ve only had one relative in a care home, but I can’t imagine the staff there going along with bizarre requests like this 🤷‍♀️ But how would it have worked if we’d said, for example, that specific individuals were not allowed to visit her? Are care homes required to follow instructions from relatives like that?

The article also talks about the lack of a DOLS but implies that his wife should be supplying this to the home: I thought it was the care provider who’d need to apply for this, not family?

i know that there are very knowledgable people on this board and wondered what your take on this story was.

DOLS orders are used when people are being subjected to continuous supervision and care. The 'acid test' used to be whether the person had capacity to consent to being cared for where they were accommodated. That changed with the Supreme Court judgement in June 2026, and the issue now is multifactorial and more about 'are they content with where they are (even if they can't satisfy the test of capacity), and 'if they wanted to leave, would we let them?'

If they are happy with where they are, even if lacking full capacity, then DOLS isn't necessarily needed. If they are unhappy and they wouldn't be allowed to leave if they tried to or could try to, they are deprived of their liberty, and a DOLS order may be needed. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-definition-of-deprivation-of-liberty/uk-supreme-court-2026-judgment-on-what-constitutes-a-deprivation-of-liberty

LPA doesn't override the capacity of the individual, and an individual can have capacity in one area but not another, or fluctuating capacity. It sounds like the conflict is about who gets to choose what contact people have with Ranulph Fiemnes, and who gets to decide what contact is had. The principle of least restrictive option should be used, so if he gives any indication that he enjoys the contact, he should be allowed to have it, even if the home staff feel that some level of supervision is needed.

I agree this is an unusual situation and there is likely to be more information the public have not been told.

I also agree repeatedly moving care homes is not usually in the persons best interests. I can understand trying a couple out as part of respite care in readiness for a more permanent stay.

To be honest this is one of those situations where not knowing what the exact circumstances are and why his wife has made the decisions she has makes it very difficult to speculate.
I should add I work in social care so have some experience of situations that could be portrayed like this one. What troubles me is that it seems the care home may have raised alarm bells which does suggest something is off.
I have known of people in homes I have worked in whereby the was instructions to prevent access to our client to specific people. But the reasoning behind that was always because it was detrimental to the wellbeing of our client. Wherever possible we tried to facilitate safe contact in the first instance - including supervising visits. I remember one client who had severe allergies but extended family members still tried to feed them home cooked foods containing things they were allergic to for example. So a member of staff was always present when they came.
I’ve also seen it where family or friends visits have caused great distress and confusion to a client. Not necessarily because of anything the visitors had done but due to their condition. Sometimes it isn’t easy for people to respect or accept that their visits no longer are of benefit and for the sake of the wellbeing of the client need to be stopped.

Sometimes it’s very easy to judge a situation without necessarily having all the facts.

If however she has done this due to her own agenda then that is certainly completely unethical and wrong.

You could speculate that having a very long happy marriage to your childhood sweetheart (they'd known each other since he was 12) might make someone a man bit naïve about 'the relationship scene' for want of a better phrase.

Macca and Heather Mills comes to mind @PoliteRaven . I do agree sometimes a very long and happy marriage can do this, especially when amplified by the fact that itwas your sole relationship ever and the surviving partner is left adrift.

I'd never even heard the second Lady Fiennes name before all this and hope it is a case of being over zealous and perhaps misguided and this can be sorted out. Whatever, SRF happiness and safety is paramount and there are I believe genuine concerns being expressed. It does seem to raise important questions about how LPOAs are used and the amount of power and responsibility that goes with them.

True, but his stepson isn't a distant relative, nor his late wifes sister. She obviously thinks so highly of him she went to the extreme of booking herself into the same care home just to see him.

Arabella Pepper, the younger sister of Sir Ranulph's late first wife Ginny, told BBC Newsnight that she had not been able to see her former brother-in-law for over a year. "All his friends and family want to see him and take him Toblerones and cheer him up, but we don't know where is, and he's not available, he's not accessible - that's what worries us," she said.
She alleges that she was only able to see him in July 2025 after she admitted herself to a care home where she had been told he was staying.
"The first thing I said to him, apart from the usual greetings, was that everybody was worried about him, was looking for him, was longing to see him. The relief on his face was very obvious, and he said, send a message to everybody, send them my love, tell them I love them and tell them I'm longing to see them."

Yes but her stay in the care home was part of a plan hatched (by his own admission) by Michael Kobold.
Kobold's 'disagreement' with RF's wife has been going on since 2008.
Read his blog, the man is extremely odd. The ex SIL is odd and the stepson is odd.
They've been hounding RF's wife.
The police have said he's receiving appropriate care.

www.michaelkobold.com/post/blackmailing-ranulph-fiennes

Obviously I don’t know the details about this particular case but I can only talk about my dad. He died in what was an EMI, fully funded under CHC and under a DoLs. His whereabouts whilst not kept secret as such was not disclosed to others apart from a couple of very close friends by DM and myself. Nothing underhand but my dad was a very proud intelligent man and would have hated what he became, let alone have people see him like that.

I've seen no evidence eg John Simpson, Joseph Fiennes, Sir Robin Knox-Johnston or Ben Fogle are "odd", let alone the stepson who has known him since being a child.

As a wife who is also a carer, I was far from impressed by the singing of "hey ho" while he was mobilising, interspersed with orders, very 'odd' and also demeaning, didn't get any humour or warmth there. I don't know, but perhaps his wife could be described as 'odd'. We are talking about people who can afford the very best of help to cope with the situation and with a great deal of potential outside support not available to most.

Can I add Bear Grills and King Charles to your list please @Uricon2 . According to Mrs Finnes, the latter of whom hated RF and Queen Camilla had helicopters fly over their property to annoy them. So that sounds completely normal and not at all "odd"...

I suspect this is probably the case here too. Particularly now that the police have clarified that they do not have any safeguarding concerns.
Something about it makes me feel like the wider family may be being kept at arms length for good reason. Particularly the way a go fund me has been set up. It seems exploitative and disrespectful

Yes, @AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta I think that definitely comes under the heading of odd, indeed.

I'm going to tell a completely anonymised story from many decades ago. Bedbound unwell older man, in bed in a conservatory that would have been boiling in summer and freezing in winter. No carers apart from less than concerned family and a television that was carefully tilted away so he couldn't see the screen and not loud enough for him to hear. Carefully kept away from any services that would be able to intervene. Eventually Social Care were tipped off and speedy action was taken.

Bad things do happen and while I'm not saying there is ill intent here, such allegations do need to be investigated thoroughly.

Suspect wife over-anxious. If she was terrified RF would be hunted down by enemies of his old special forces brigade, she could have put him in a military home.

See Slow Horses.

Odd she didn’t. Suspect she’s paranoid for his safety and I’m not surprised it’s kicked off. Poor man.

Feinnes did used to claim that he was on a hit list relating to his time in the special forces and that his old comrades were being hunted down, as set out in his book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feather_Men

You're right ,he is estranged from his mother,has been for years. In 2908 she blackmailed Ranulph,threatening to expose sex tapes she had secretly filmed.

Have you read the article about her upthread,

An NDA doesn't stop you reporting a crime to the police, and I'd be amazed if it stops any kind of welfare issue being reported to anyone who needs to know.

It just stops people selling stories to the press and gossiping.

Here's what the police said:

On Monday evening, Cheshire Police said it was satisfied Sir Ranulph was receiving suitable care.
Detective Chief Superintendent Claire Jesson said: “Police and partner agencies are aware of the concerns raised and are satisfied that Sir Ranulph Fiennes is living in an appropriate setting with suitable care and professional oversight,” she said.
“No immediate safeguarding concerns have been identified at this time.
“Any new information received will be assessed and considered through the appropriate multi-agency arrangements.
“As this is a matter involving an individual's care and welfare, it would not be appropriate to comment further on personal circumstances. We would ask that privacy is respected and unnecessary speculation is avoided.”

As I say...odd.

Odd...

https://kathmandupost.com/investigations/2019/06/17/kobolds-deadline-to-bring-fire-trucks-has-expired-but-nepal-tourism-board-says-it-has-yet-to-decide-on-a-legal-response

No Lady Fiennes is very ODD.

The same kind of prurience and nosey parkering that is (rightly) encouraged with regard to safeguarding children, you mean? There is something obviously amiss when his stepson (who is NC with his own mother, RF’’s second wife) and the King are among those expressing concern about his whereabouts. He has been moved out of several care homes at the homes’ request, because they refused to go along with his wife trying to insist on an unhinged medication regime, including medication which had been prescribed for people other than RF!

Michael Kobold is indeed quite odd / not the most squeaky clean person if you Google him.

But all the other people who have been denied access...

I know what the police have said. He is receiving care. I'm not sure about the best interests of denying all his friends and family access though...

. @AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta
Can I add Bear Grills and King Charles to your list please . According to Mrs Finnes, the latter of whom hated RF and Queen Camilla had helicopters fly over their property to annoy them. So that sounds completely normal and not at all "odd"..

I don’t understand this. Did Mrs Fiennes have helicopters fly over the King and Queen’s property, or Queen Camilla had helicopters fly over the Fiennes’s property?
Also, who hated RF?

And yet Care Inspectorate Wales formally concluded that Sir Ranulph was being "unlawfully deprived of his liberty".

All Cheshire Police will have done is check that he was resident in an officially registered and approved care home within their county at the time - possibly several settings ago, as he’s being moved regularly, apparently because care home managers are expressing misgivings about deprivation of liberty and bizarre medication requests and refusing to agree with the extreme regime Lady F wishes to impose, regarding the care of her husband.

I was talking to someone who has been a close friend of RF for more than 50 years and they are not allowed to know where RF is although they wouldn't try and see him if he didn't want to see them. They are (and have been for some time) very worried about him.