Ed Sheeran’s Posthumous Album: Letter of Wishes vs Codicil

This is a clear example of how artists think about legacy after death. It also highlights an important legal distinction between a letter of wishes and a codicil. That distinction matters because it can fundamentally affect whether a person’s wishes are merely taken into account after death or must be carried out.

What a letter of wishes actually does

A letter of wishes sits outside a testator’s will. It is not legally binding. Its function is to guide, rather than control, the executors or trustees responsible for administering the estate. 

Many people use a letter of wishes because it offers flexibility. A letter of wishes can be kept confidential, can usually be updated without the formalities applicable to wills, and can be used to express a testator’s wishes without imposing binding legal obligations on executors or trustees. 

If Ed Sheeran were to write:

“I would love my wife to select the ten best tracks from my career starting at age 18 and release them as a posthumous album entitled ‘Eject’,”

that would amount to guidance only. Ed’s executors should consider it and have regard to it, but they would not be compelled to comply with it. If releasing the album conflicted with their duty to preserve estate value, contradicted the will, or otherwise proved impracticable, they could properly depart from Ed’s wish.

In short, a letter of wishes gives guidance rather than imposing an obligation.

What a codicil does differently

A codicil, by contrast, is a formal testamentary document that amends or supplements a will. It must be executed in the same manner as a will (i.e. in accordance with the Wills Act 1837). Once validly executed, it forms part of the testator’s binding testamentary instructions. 

If, instead of using a letter of wishes, Ed were to execute a codicil stating:

“I direct my executors to release a posthumous album titled ‘Eject’. Eject shall consist of the ten best tracks from my career beginning at age 18, as selected by my wife,”

then his executors would be under a legal duty to carry out that instruction. It would no longer be a mere expression of wish or preference. 

This matters because any income generated by the album may fall into Ed’s estate. If the executors failed to give effect to a binding instruction of this kind, there could quickly be scope for dispute from those interested in the estate. For example, beneficiaries might raise complaints or bring claims on the basis that the estate has been administered contrary to Ed’s directions, exposing the executors to the risk of a breach of duty claim. 

The practical difference between a letter of wishes and a codicil therefore becomes significant very quickly, for both executors and beneficiaries. 

Why creative estates are more complicated

Creative estates can present distinct difficulties that are less commonly encountered in more conventional estates. In the UK, musical works are governed by copyright law, and copyright in musical works generally subsists for 70 years after the creator’s death. Sound recordings attract their own separate protection under UK copyright law. 

Releasing an album is therefore not simply a sentimental decision. It also gives rise to potentially significant commercial consequences involving, among other things, contracts, licensing, and royalties.

Executors must navigate all of this while complying with their fiduciary obligations. They must preserve and properly administer the estate, avoid conflicts of interest, and act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. Tension may arise where, for example, a spouse is both beneficiary and executor, and is also entrusted with a subjective decision such as selecting ‘the ten best tracks’. Is Ed’s wife to make that decision by reference to Ed’s artistic vision, her personal taste, a desire to maximise income, or some combination or all three? The answer could significantly affect how the estate is managed.

Why many clients prefer a letter of wishes

For individuals with public profiles, creative assets, or complex family dynamics, a letter of wishes is often the more attractive option. It allows them to express their intentions clearly, without rigidly binding the executors who will have to deal with the practical and commercial realities of administering the estate.

That flexibility can be especially useful where reputational issues, changing circumstances, or subjective decisions are involved. What seems like a good idea when the document is prepared may look rather different by the time of the testator’s death.

A codicil, by contrast, hardens the instruction into a binding legal direction. That may be appropriate (and even desirable) in some cases, but testators with estates involving creative works may prefer to preserve flexibility where the matter is nuanced or commercially unpredictable.

Final thought

Ed’s proposed album ‘Eject’ provides a useful illustration of the distinction between a letter of wishes and a codicil in the context of creative estates. A letter of wishes can communicate a testator’s wishes, but it does not compel compliance. A codicil can compel compliance, but at the price of flexibility. For estates involving artistic works, where value, legacy and reputation may all pull in different directions, that distinction can make a real difference.