This article argues that asking whether guardianship has changed is the wrong question. It is the wrong question because guardianship does not exist in isolation from other institutions and legal instruments, such as enduring powers and nominee powers, or informal community arrangements of support or substituted decision-making. It is the wrong question because archetypical purity of guardianship as substitution and support as autonomy does not reflect real world experience of it as it is always a mixture of both, changing over time and decision type; and because change is very hard to pin down. In place of arid debates about whether guardianship should be modified or abolished, the better question to ask is where guardianship and its associated institutions fit within an ideally configured holistic package of formal and informal measures, and whether there are any indications of progress towards its realisation, or how that might be achieved.
Keywords: autonomy; guardianship; holistic reform; substituted decision-making; supported decision-making.