The Guardian details ongoing discussions surrounding Prince Philip’s will as the public seeks access to its contents. The court process to determine whether the will should remain private has entered a new phase in London. The Guardian has challenged a September 2021 ruling that kept the Duke of Edinburgh’s last testament sealed for 90 years, arguing that the public’s right to know should prevail in matters of royal wealth and responsibility.
The hearings began on Wednesday, July 19. On the opening day, Kaolifion Gallagher, representing The Guardian, argued that the decision not to inform the press about the impending court examination of the will infringes the principle of open justice. He asserted that the proceedings included private, closed sessions with no accreditation for journalists and no opportunities for third party observation. Such closed hearings, he said, constitute a serious interference with transparent justice.
Observers noted that Judge Andrew Macfarlane, who chose not to disclose the will, made an unusual move by limiting press access. This move prompted questions about whether the public could properly assess the reasonableness of the judge’s decision.
Royal family lawyers and the Attorney General, Sir James Eady, who last September supported keeping the contents private, oppose The Guardian’s challenge. During the second day of the hearing, Sir James Easy urged that closing the September hearing to the press did not harm the public interest. In court he emphasized that the principle of clear justice is not immutable and stated that The Guardian did not claim the decision aimed to protect royal dignity or privacy at the expense of public accountability.
The Attorney General distinguished between the personal finances of a royal member and the state funded care that supports their position. He noted that Parliament’s annual allocations for royal support can be debated publicly, but the size of Prince Philip’s personal fortune is a separate matter. The judge’s conclusions about public interest were framed around commercial advantages for the press, while the real public interest should be considered in a legal sense.
Prince Philip’s fortune remains largely undisclosed. The Guardian has attempted to estimate the amount withheld from public scrutiny during the era when royal wills were sealed. Since 1911, a number of wills have been kept confidential at the queen’s lawyers’ request. Under British law, the last will of any citizen can become public, but royal wills have followed different protocols.
The Guardian’s calculations place the royal family’s total wealth at around £187 million, including extended family members. These figures are derived from wealth levels reported for various royals across generations, acknowledging that some inheritances may not be fully traceable to a single will. The analysis also recognizes that some estates may have shifted through multiple wills, complicating a precise accounting.
Within the historical context, the richest member of the modern 110-year span was Alexander William George, Duke of Fife, who died in 1912. His estate amounted to roughly £79.7 million in today’s terms. The comparison places him ahead of Elizabeth’s sister Princess Margaret and other royals whose fortunes are noted for their influence on royal finances. Other historically significant figures include Louise, Duchess of Argyll; Queen Victoria’s daughter Louise of Great Britain, and Queen Mary of Teck, Elizabeth’s grandmother. Each left fortunes that, when adjusted for inflation, run into the tens of millions today. The lineage also lists Louis, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, as an influential figure in the lineage, with a substantial legacy noted in public records. Multiple descendants of Queen Victoria are cited for their financial legacies, illustrating the long-standing interest in the fiscal footprint of the monarchy.
At the same time, the status of two deceased royals Prince Philip and Queen Anne Elizabeth remains secret in this broader accounting, so The Guardian refrains from presenting a complete total for those estates. The broader point remains clear: court openness plays a central role in how the public understands the finances and responsibilities of the royal family, and the legal process continues to weigh the public’s interest against privacy and ceremonial tradition. This ongoing legal discourse reflects a broader debate about access to information in high-profile institutions and the standards by which royal finances should be disclosed in the public record. The outcome of these hearings could set a precedent for future cases involving royal wills and the transparency of wealth held by members of the British royal family.