Ms Benmusa, not content with the hint dropped from the last judgment, which was as heavy as an anvil catapulted into the air by Wiley Coyote only to come crashing back down on his bonce, revived her application to see Princess Margaret’s will, which would prove that she, Ms Benmusa, was the illegitimate daughter of Princess Margaret.
She filed a statement, making reference to her aunt, who was born in 1904.
As the President carefully pointed out, this aunt is thus purportedly the elder sibling of Queen Elizabeth II. That is difficult to countenance, because (a) being the elder sibling of Queen Elizabeth II would have made this Aunt the Queen, and perhaps more importantly (b) the alleged father of this aunt was King George VI who was born in 1895. I know times were different then, but I do honestly believe that if King George had fathered a child when he was just nine years old, that would have been something of a sensation.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/785.html
The judgment is short enough, and cool enough, to print in full, so I’m going to…
- I have before me, as President of the Family Division, another application by Malika Benmusa. I struck out a previous application on 14 March 2017: Re Benmusa [2017] EWHC 494 (Fam). This application is dated 20 March 2017 and was received by the court on 23 March 2017.
- This application, like the previous one, seeks “To apply to unseal the will of the late Princess Margaret.” The only difference is that, on this occasion, the application which, like the previous one, I am invited to deal with “without a hearing” is accompanied by a closely-spaced one page statement by the applicant dated 20 March 2017 and a copy of a death certificate of a woman, who was born in 1904 and died in 1997 and who, according to the applicant, was “my late Aunt.”
- I do not propose to set out the entire contents of the applicant’s statement. Its flavour can be judged by the opening part (again I set it out as written):
-
- “I MISS MALIKA BENMUSA, am the last child of the late princess Margret … I was born in Scotland. My mother married my father a year before I was born, then separated, but never divorced. I do not wish to give out my father id as he is a very well know. […] My mother was very frightened of her so called family, and felt I needed protection. I am the heir to the throne of England. This is why so much trouble has been taken to cover up my identity. I believe between the age of three years old I was raised by my mother older sister, not known to the public, due to my grandparents’ not been married, and because of the war at the time. When I was three years old I believe my mother was frightened by her own family member to give me up for adoption, my mother did not consent to this. They frightened her saying that she was a drunk and my father was a drug addict. And my mother was told to remove me from the care of her older sister who real name was [name as on death certificate] […] Last address was before she passed [address as on death certificate]. The Kings Georges oldest daughter.”
In charity to the applicant I quote no more.
- The application is self-evidently complete nonsense It is a matter of public record, of which I can take judicial notice, that the father of her late Royal Highness Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, was his late Majesty King George VI, who was born on 14 December 1895, and that her mother was her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who was born on 4 August 1900. They married on 26 April 1923. Quite obviously a woman born in 1904 could not have been, as the applicant asserts, her mother’s elder sister if, as she also asserts, her mother was HRH Princess Margaret. I have no hesitation in concluding that I should strike out the applicant’s claim, as I do. It is a farrago of delusional nonsense.
I am ordering in popcorn and waiting for round 3.
suesspiciousminds 
‘But i want to be Queen, it’s my human rights.’
There have been lots of these, 1st one i heard of was in the 1980s, since then i have had interesting discussions with several claimants to the throne.
I tell them all the same, well as there is a crowned monarch you only legal option is to grab your gauntlet, get up to Westminster Abbey and throw it down in challenge and be prepared for a fight to the death in single combat with the Queen’s champion.
They do keep the armour polished just in case
You’re going to fight THAT??
I’m going to kill that
Poor Oberyn Martell….
Don’t worry there are several other bastard ‘sand snakes’ waiting in the wings to make claims to the throne.
The judge should really make directions for trial by combat in these cases
Frankly I think Pretender vs Queen’s Champion fights to the death would make good real life paid spectacle and reality TV and of course lots of pomp
The feudal holder of the Manor of Scrivelsby in Lincolnshire, England, has, since the Norman Conquest in 1066, held the manor from the Crown by grand serjeanty of being The Honourable The King’s/Queen’s Champion. Such person is also the Standard Bearer of England.
The current one is a chartered account and born 1955
If the Champion fought, and won, he got as his reward the armour he wore, and the horse he rode (the second best in the Royal Mews), both of which were on loan.
The words of the challenge varied over the years, but those used for King George IV were these:
“If any person, of whatever degree soever, high or low, shall deny or gainsay [contradict] our Sovereign Lord George, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, son and next heir unto our Sovereign Lord the last King deceased, to be the right heir to the imperial Crown of this realm of Great Britain and Ireland, or that he ought not to enjoy the same; here is his Champion, who saith that he lieth, and is a false traitor, being ready in person to combat with him, and in this quarrel will adventure his life against him on what day soever he shall be appointed.”
Maybe Charlie should watch out the Champion was required to ride in full armour into Westminster Hall during the coronation banquet, escorted by the Earl Marshal and the Lord High Constable, all in full dress, robes and coronets, and await the challenge to all comers. The King himself could not fight in single combat against anyone except an equal. This trial by combat remained purely ceremonial and had a central place in the coronation banquet.
But maybe some claimants will turn up.
Admit it such cases of R v …. would be much more interesting with a bit of blood
Think of the fun you could have with the judgements
Anyone remember the character in the Moonstone who claimed to be a Duke but nobody would listen to him?
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
“The judgment is short enough, and cool enough, to print in full, so I’m going to…
I have before me, as President of the Family Division, another application by Malika Benmusa. I struck out a previous application on 14 March 2017: Re Benmusa [2017] EWHC 494 (Fam). This application is dated 20 March 2017 and was received by the court on 23 March 2017.
This application, like the previous one, seeks “To apply to unseal the will of the late Princess Margaret.” The only difference is that, on this occasion, the application which, like the previous one, I am invited to deal with “without a hearing” is accompanied by a closely-spaced one page statement by the applicant dated 20 March 2017 and a copy of a death certificate of a woman, who was born in 1904 and died in 1997 and who, according to the applicant, was “my late Aunt.”
I do not propose to set out the entire contents of the applicant’s statement. Its flavour can be judged by the opening part (again I set it out as written):
“I MISS MALIKA BENMUSA, am the last child of the late princess Margret … I was born in Scotland. My mother married my father a year before I was born, then separated, but never divorced. I do not wish to give out my father id as he is a very well know. […] My mother was very frightened of her so called family, and felt I needed protection. I am the heir to the throne of England. This is why so much trouble has been taken to cover up my identity. I believe between the age of three years old I was raised by my mother older sister, not known to the public, due to my grandparents’ not been married, and because of the war at the time. When I was three years old I believe my mother was frightened by her own family member to give me up for adoption, my mother did not consent to this. They frightened her saying that she was a drunk and my father was a drug addict. And my mother was told to remove me from the care of her older sister who real name was [name as on death certificate] […] Last address was before she passed [address as on death certificate]. The Kings Georges oldest daughter.”
In charity to the applicant I quote no more.
The application is self-evidently complete nonsense It is a matter of public record, of which I can take judicial notice, that the father of her late Royal Highness Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, was his late Majesty King George VI, who was born on 14 December 1895, and that her mother was her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who was born on 4 August 1900. They married on 26 April 1923. Quite obviously a woman born in 1904 could not have been, as the applicant asserts, her mother’s elder sister if, as she also asserts, her mother was HRH Princess Margaret. I have no hesitation in concluding that I should strike out the applicant’s claim, as I do. It is a farrago of delusional nonsense.”
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..