No announcement yet.

Yet more will questions....

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Yet more will questions....

    I've been to the library and got every book on wills they had...and still have questions.

    This will was written in 1823 by Elizabeth Ariel, wife of Myles Ariel.

    This is the last bit...

    "On the 1st June 1839 Admon with the will annexed of the Goods Chattels and Credits of Elizabeth Ariel wife of Myles Ariel, late of the city of Bristol deceased was granted to Robert Leonard and Edward Jarrett Ransford the Executors haveing been first sworn by Canon duly to administer. The said Myles Ariel the lawful husband of the said deceased and as such the only person entitled to her personal estate over which she had us disposing power and concerning which she is dead intestate having first consented as by Acts of Courts appear."

    In the will, Elizabeth gives quite a bit to her children, some were married at the time.
    What does the "intestate" mean in this sense?
    Would Myles just have got everything?

    I read that prior to 1882 wifes had to have their husband's permission to write a will.
    I imagine she had his permission as it is witnessed by solicitors.
    Strangely one solicitor was her husband's future second wife's brother.
    (Think Agatha, for those who know)

    What does the "intestate" mean in this sense?
    Would Myles just have got everything?
    Hi Libby,

    I would think intestate means that her will had been ruled null and void by a court, and accordingly an administration (Admon) was granted as though the will had never existed.

    It sounds as if Myles was legally entitled to everything, but had consented to appear before the court - what this means, I can only guess.

    It could turn out to be an interesting story, if you could get some additional information. Hmmm ... a few possibilities come to mind.

    Do you know when Elizabeth died? I'm wondering how long before the administration was granted in 1839 - had Myles & Elizabeth's circumstances changed dramatically since the will was written in 1823? Were some/all of the children named in the will still alive?

    Perhaps there was a legal dispute over the will between Myles and some other party, possibly one of the Executors (or one of the children?). If so, perhaps solicitor's records or the court records have survived - do you know what firm Myles' future BIL was associated with? And whether their records have been archived?

    What sort of goods, money, or real estate was Elizabeth bequeathing? Perhaps there were items which Myles considered to be his/theirs and that he wasn't prepared to give up while he was still alive.

    Could some of Elizabeth's goods, money, etc... have been used as collateral for something (the Admon covers "Goods Chattels and Credits")? Perhaps Messrs. Leonard and Ransford held a lien? Again, there may be records or perhaps legal notices in newspapers.

    Do you know whether Myles left a will, or any of his children? Perhaps they may contain a clue as to what might have happened.

    That's all I can think of for now - time for me to go to bed.

    Good luck -

    "If we're lucky, one day our names and dates will appear in our descendants' family trees."


      Hi Tim...

      Elizabeth died in Dec 1837, so eighteen months before.

      The children were not named in the will. Just that Elizabeth's trusts and credits be divided equally between them.

      One child had died after the will was written but before Elizabeth died. The others ranged in age from 20 down to 5.

      Her husband, Myles, married the sister of Thomas Clark (the solicitor who witnessed the will) in 1839. One of their daughters, Agatha, married a brother of Thomas (another solicitor) in 1839.
      Myles died the following year and the bulk of his property to his new wife. Oddly he is buried with his first wife and mother-in-law.

      I can't seem to find any interesting info on google. I'll email Bristol RO and see what they suggest.



        Or he could just have been a greedy, grasping man, using his knowledge of the law to get her money. Having her declared intestate would mean that yes, he was entitled to everything.



          Puts a completely new slant on this family saga......


            I don't pretend to understand the legalities but I read the will extract to mean that adinistration WAS granted to these two gents to carry out the terms of the will and that her husband had, far from being "mean and grasping" consented to the grant of administration even though legally he had a right to her personal estate
            Judith passed away in October 2018


              Actually can read it that way.......much nicer.


                But if he was such a lovely man, why contest the will at all, and why not just administer it as she had wished.

                Unless of course, someone else contested it and declared it intestate? Are these administrators family members?



                  OC.......Thomas Ransford married Elizabeth's aunt (also Elizabeth). I haven't looked, but am fairly certain he would be related to Edward Ransford.

                  I wonder if Thomas Clark (the solicitor) sister, Lucretia talked Myles into contesting it, knowing she would get the bulk then when he married her......

                  It was Thomas and Lucretia's brother Edward Clark who married Myles and Elizabeth's daughter, Agatha, then divorced her in 1845 just before she went AWOL.


                    I don't understand that at all. As far as I know, the only legal meaning of "intestate" is "died without making a will".

                    If a will had been declared invalid by a court, it wouldn't have been annexed to the admon.

                    Libby, can you scan and post the exerpt from the probate that you posted above?


                      I can when I get the scanner to scan, Mary. Daughter says she'll sort it out tomorrow.

                      But I have typed it word for word above.

                      Seems strange that Elizabeth died March 1837......her husband Myles remarried Feb 1839...and this will was sttled June 1839. i don't suppose it metters that Myles had remarried by then.

                      It's not like he needed Elizabeth's money. He owned half of Bristol.

             the way.....this will is the daughter of George Naylor whose will you did for me the other day.


                        Sorry, but it still sounds like a dirty job to me! He did his own children out of their inheritance.


                        I think intestate means dying without leaving a VALID will. All he had to do was to say he did not give his permission for her to make a will.



                          Administration with the will annexed is fairly common, I think, as I have seen it a lot in the indexes but have never ordered a copy of one myself so I don't know exactly what the reason for it is.

                          (I have some wills from pre-1858 where they weren't witnessed properly and people had to appear to give evidence that it was the handwriting and signature of the testator etc before probate was granted but I haven't got a post-1858 example in my collection!)

                          Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
                          (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")



                            When my mum died, we discovered with horror that she had not actually signed her will, although it had been properly witnessed.

                            We had no problems getting probate, although her solicitor (in whose presence she "signed" the will, lol) said he would be happy to make a statement of her intent, in the event of any problems.



                              I have a 1854 will with admon where there were "several interlineations and erasures" and as a result the court decided to appoint administrators (who weren't the original executors) to administer the estate. Basically the will is a mess!

                              In addition to the will there are 5 other pages of documents where various other people had to make sworn statements.

                              According to Family History Online will with admon is usually where the executors have died or they have refused to execute the will.

                              Are there no other documents with the will that explain why it was not executed?



                                Oh yes, Jackie has a point - who were the executors on the invalid will?



                                  The executors were Robert Leonard and Edward Jarrett Ransford.
                                  Witnessed by solicitors......Samuel Goodhand, Thomas Clark and Wm Edward Collingwood,
                                  Messrs Stephens and Goodhand, Sol Bristol.

                                  Her husband's will is dated 15th April 1839 (just after he remarried) and Proved 7th May 1840.

                                  Same executors and same solicitors.

                                  Robert Leonard was also executor for Myles' father William Ariel.....proved 16th January 1836.


                                    It seems VERY fishy to me that the original executors became the administrators and I am very surprised the court allowed this, on the grounds of conflict of interests.

                                    The sister may have contested the will, but all the widower had to say, to leave the will valid, is that he had given his wife permission to make a will.

                                    the solicitors who drew up the will would have known very well indeed that she needed her husband's permission - unless they were just humouring her, in which case, THAT's fishy too!



                                      I've just found Elizabeth's mother's will at TNA For some reason I hadn't thought to look at that.

                                      As Elizabeth (this will writer) was an only child, and her mother had moved from Yorkshire to live in Bristol, it might shed some light.

                                      Wonder if they'll download wills in the middle of the night on a weekend????

                                      Here's trying..........


                                        I've just downloaded Elizabeth Naylor's will of 1830.

                                        She is the mother of the Elizabeth Ariel who is the writer of the above will.

                                        She leaves 19 pounds and 19 shillings to her servant Ann Virgo. Sounds like there was a 20 pound limit??

                                        She then leaves 40 pounds to a London Missionary Society.
                                        She leaves 200 pounds to (surprise, surprise) Robert Leonard and Edward Ransford for administration costs.

                                        She leaves her several properties in Cleckheaton and (I think) Coalfield, Yorkshire to her daughter Elizabeth Ariel.
                                        Then she leaves all her bonds, securities and stocks, plus 2,000 pounds to the daughters of her daughter, "that they not be liable to the debts or control of any husband they may have"
                                        There's also odds bits of securities for the sons of her daughter and the husband of her daughter.

                                        So the Elizabeth Ariel who wrote the contested will would have had a fair whack of private property. She got 1500 pounds from her father's will in 1806 when she was a child, plus all her mother's loot.
                                        Her mother (the above Elizabeth Naylor) was Elizabeth Eyre before her marriage and the daughter of a merchant, so looks like a line of money.