The outrage about Sir Ranulph Fiennes, and the idea that he has ‘disappeared’ from public view in his twilight years, says a lot about our confused attitudes to the elderly.

I found myself scratching my head when reading claims this week about how his wife had been managing his care, and I found less than convincing the breathless allegations in various newspapers about her being censured by a bureaucratic body for her use of Lasting Power of Attorney. If you want to cast aspersions on a woman nursing her 82-year-old husband who has Parkinson’s, then I would have thought you should proceed with caution.

If you want to cast aspersions on a woman nursing her 82-year-old husband who has Parkinson’s, then I would have thought you should proceed with caution

If you want to cast aspersions on a woman nursing her 82-year-old husband who has Parkinson’s, then I would have thought you should proceed with caution

But there was a tone of hysteria to the outrage that greeted the allegation that Fiennes cannot be found by people who want to find him, including the King, for heaven’s sake. The idea that comes over is that because he was a great explorer he is somehow public property and should be freely accessible, even when he has Parkinson’s and might want some privacy. This seems pretty unkind to me.

‘Explorer’s friends asked the Office of the Public Guardian to investigate missing 82-year-old,’ said the Daily Telegraph. ‘The explorer’s wife has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent contact, with even an inquiry from the King’s equerry rebuffed.’ Gosh, who would rebuff the King? (I would.)

‘Sir Ranulph has been moved from care home to care home by his wife Louise........

© The Spectator