Genealogy Chat

There's no rhyme or reason on who does leave a will, but the ones to look for are aunts and uncles without any children. In a lot of wills, it is obvious that parents have already provided for their children during their lifetime: by seeing that daughters are respectably married and sons are set up in trades. You also get wills where parents die while their children are very young, so attempting to protect them from step parents or greedy guardians. Very few of my ancestors left wills - at least that were proved. I have one ancestor who made a death bed will - so everyone must have known about it, but it wasn't proved for eight years. Presumably, this was either because the family couldn't gain title to an asset, or someone worried that they should have proved the will because it set in stone the dying man's wishes. But they seem to have lived perfectly happily for eight years without probate, so there must have been other cases where familes simply saved themselves the expense by doing it themselves.

Tom, the only wills I've found for mine (with one exception) were the Northumberland lot who were copyholder farmers in the 17th- mid 19th century. That branch is only one of my 16 2xgt grandparents. I just wish I could find something for the others. As for the time element, I have one instance of a chap who died in 1807 naming his son as executor - who was only 19 at the time. The will was finally proved in 1836 - 10 years after the son died.

As for the idea that most people left wills, I don't think so. Or at least if they did, probate wasn't required. Out of my family there are certain lines where most people are on the National Probate Calendar, but many other lines where none of them appear. It is really only the rich ones who are in there! None of my coal miner rellies, for instance, are in there. Kate.

Tom - they could have left a will but their estate wasn't large enough for probate to be needed, so the family just sorted it out for themselves. Also, it has been known for people to take more than 5 years to get probate or administration! That is what's so good about doing the search yourself instead of asking York to do the search - you can keep going for decades just in case! One of my ancestors (g-g-g-grandfather) had 14 children, was head of a company which employed 20 people, and lived to be very old and died at his son's house, and I was certain he would have left a will but neither I nor York has ever found it, nor is he listed in the Death Duties Index, so I have come to the conclusion that he gave everything away before his death to avoid death duties. It does seem to be less common for women to leave wills than men, or at least for their wills to have required probate. Anyway, sometimes wills tell you nothing that you didn't already know! Kate.

I haven't got any wills for anybody - didn;t think that people did them 'back then' but after reading many of the other threads on wills, it seems to be the general consencus that MOST people did leave wills - even if it was just for household goods. And i'd have thought that with there being so many children and grandchildren some of mine would have left wills.

You only really need a will nowadays to 1) manage tax liability and 2) if you can't trust the family to sort it out fairly.

Neither was likely to leave a will. 1. The widow Is likely to have been kept by children. House is probably rented. 2. Accidental death Everyone thinks they will live till old age. Most wills are made shortly before death at the onset of illness. People make wills a. To spite their relatives b. To feel important c. Because their affairs are too complex to be dealt with by the family. If they owned property or had savings: shares, bank account etc that required a grant of probate, then either they left a will or probate was granted to the administrators of the estate. If matters were simple and they were perfectly happy that their next of kin could settle everything between themselves, there was no need to go to the fuss of making a will.

I went to a records centre yesterday and spent quite a bit of time searching for rellies who were on the probate calender. Not a sausage. I even tried up to five years afterwards. I just don;t understand why they wouldn;t have had a will? One for example: Lost husband two years before. Got gangrene. Had leg amputated. In 1901 she is the Head of the house. Dies just after the census. This means that she must have had something to leave - doesn't it? She also had about 5 children - so shouldn;t there be a will? Another one: Age 67. Living with daughter and son in law. Only had one daughter and one son. Dies of a heart attack whilst working down the pit. Shouldn;t there be a will? (1936) Any ideas?

see below.