Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

who kept wills?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • who kept wills?

    my cousins and i brought up a good point in discussion today, about who kept wills in the past. these days as i understand it, you have a copy of your will, and the solicitor has a copy of it too. but was this always the case? i'm wondering if this became more commonplace in the mid to late 19th century?

    i do know of one instance in my research, of a widow who had to contest her husband's will (1774). his family produced an outdated will upon his death, dated the day his last wife arrived in fort marlborough, sumatra (1770 off my head). this one left everything to his 3rd wife (current wife at the time of the will) and two children. the widow being the 4th wife, claimed there was an updated will, and the family in the end, admitted there was a more recent one. so this to me sounds like the will was kept by the person writing it, and there was no copy. the widow could not produce the will, so i assume someone burned it for the old one, which would have been more favourable to the husband's family.

    i'm only asking because the widow's daughter died in 1843, and there is no will or administration on the hampshire archives site, or the canterbury court wills. though i swear she had an administration, as i remember finding her death duties in the index on FMP.

  • #2
    In many cases the testor kept the will, but in the case mentioned it would make little difference whether there was a will or not, assuming of course it comes under the laws of England & Wales.
    The reason for that is the new marriage revokes any will previous to it.
    Bearing that in mind if no valid will was brought to light it would be taken the man had died intestate and the widow would inherit his estate (unless there were minors involved).
    In broad terms, iIf the children mentioned were still supported by him they would receive a share and the widow the rest, in broad terms.
    Cheers
    Guy
    Last edited by Guy; 08-02-14, 08:30.
    Guy passed away October 2022

    Comment


    • #3
      thank you guy, i think that's what happened, the court gave a share to the children, who were raised by their father's sister, and his wife also got a share, though not till after 1780.

      Comment


      • #4
        As an interesting aside on wills, if a man is divorced, remarries and makes a will leaving everything to his present wife and children, and then decides a few years down the line to rewrite his will more in favour of one of the children but is only signed by him and not his present wife and kept in his own home, can that will be a legal document when he dies or is the first will he made on remarriage the legal document?

        Janet

        Comment


        • #5
          A will needs to be signed by the person making it, and signed by two witnesses, who can't be a beneficiary, if that is the case then the later will is valid. There would be no reason for his present wife to sign it, and it would be very unusual if she had.

          Where the will is kept has no bearing on its validity.
          Retired professional researcher, and ex- deputy registrar, now based in Worcestershire. Happy to give any help or advice I can ( especially on matters of civil registration) - contact via PM or my website www.chalfontresearch.co.uk
          Follow me on Twittter @ChalfontR

          Comment


          • #6
            Thank you for that information Anthony.

            Janet

            Comment


            • #7
              Surely, in the 1700s, a widow would not automatically inherit her husband's estate if he died intestate? Financial provision would be made for her (depending on where she lived, geographically) but she would not necessarily have any personal control over that money.

              OC

              Comment


              • #8
                if she was going to raise any children, i would think she would have control of the estate, unless there was someone to look after a trust for any children i guess.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Kyle, no, women were not allowed to have control of their children, a male guardian was always required - women were silly little creatures who would spend any money they got on hats. The law did not recognise women, except in a very few cases. A good husband making a Will, would almost certainly appoint a guardian for his children and for his wife's financial interests.

                  OC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Most of the copies of wills I have from the 1700s seem to have been made very shortly before death, perhaps an attempt to settle one's affairs and make provision for a wife and dependent children. There was no property to dispose of, nor large sums of money. Whether the will remained with the wife or with the will writer, I don't know. The majority of my folk wouldn't have been able to read a document wherever it was kept.

                    Jay
                    Janet in Yorkshire



                    Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                      Surely, in the 1700s, a widow would not automatically inherit her husband's estate if he died intestate? Financial provision would be made for her (depending on where she lived, geographically) but she would not necessarily have any personal control over that money.

                      OC
                      It was only married women who had no control over their money; widows were accepted as being perfectly capable.

                      The problem was that on marriage the two individuals became one, as one entity it followed that only one mind & voice could speak for that one entity otherwise there would be chaos.
                      Even as early as 1225 a widow's dower and inheritance was protected by law. The property Acts of 1870 and later were mainly to protect the women form their husbands controlling their property.

                      The shares personal estate of a husband/father for wife/children were called their pars rationabilis and was indeed recognised in the Magna Carta.
                      Cheers
                      Guy
                      PS Women could even make wills
                      Last edited by Guy; 09-02-14, 10:11. Reason: added a PS
                      Guy passed away October 2022

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Guy

                        I was talking about intestacy. A widow would only receive 50% of the estate (if there were children) plus the interest from the other portion. That still holds true today.

                        As far as I am aware, married women could only make wills with their husband's permission.

                        OC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yes but widows and unmarried women were a different situation and could and in many cases did make wills.
                          Cheers
                          Guy
                          Guy passed away October 2022

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X