Genealogy Chat

Uzzi .................

we've just had a very recent case in our family where a mother died, leaving 3 adult children.

All the children were named by her as Executors.


One lives in the home town, the other two are hundreds of kilometres away.

After their mother's death, all 3 went to a lawyer, and signed an agreement whereby the one in the home town was given full authority to act as the Sole Executor, without having to continually contact the other 2 for agreements. Probate is proceeding and will be granted to the one.



Could something similar possibly have happened in your case?

Greyghost thanks for that why I had a 1932 death is beyond me .. although I always had it question marked.

Wracking the brains on the family the other 2 spinster sisters went off to do war effort Nellie went to Wales as a nurse and Mabel (the youngest) also went off nursing somewhere so there would only have been Annie at home with brother John Joseph around the corner.

Thank you to both of you. :-D

Good point - they would have needed some sort of probate or administration to access Harold's money. In all probability, Emily would have needed the savings or other benefits to live on.

IF Emily remained in the Chesterfield RD where the family were living in 1901/1911 (Emily b 1864, so possibly 1863) then the only death I can find is for Dec Qtr 1946 aged 83. If that is the correct death, then she would have been alive when probate was granted.

If there had been arguments over the will, the dispute could have lasted from the 1941 death until Emily's death and then probate would have to have been re assigned, possibly to whoever was dealing with her will?

Check on Ancestry - Emily of 4 Eckington Rd, Beighton, Derbys widow died 29 December 1946. Probate London 2 April to John Joseph Turner Builder and Annie Turner spinster Effects £4279 16s 7d

Good point Det I wasn´t thinking about that ...think my brain has being working too long on the probates. :-D
It does mean that I have to re-check Emily death date ..

Probate granted to.. meant that they were the Executors. Only the Will would have details of who got what!

Might they have forgotten to subtract the money owed, then realised later that they could? Or they added in something which turned out to be owned by someone else? Some re-grants add in slightly more money, possibly because a savings account or jewellery has been unearthed.

Harold Douglas Turner born 6th Feb 1896 in Beighton Derbyshire died on the 9th Jan 1941 when an air-raid shelter fell on top of him.
on the 9th April in Llandudno probate was granted to Emily Turner (wife of John Turner) of £2916 18s 9d.

Emily was his mother

Probate was re/granted on 10th June 1947 in London to John Joseph Turner (his brother) and Annie Turner spinster (his sister) of £862.

I think that Emily (mother) died around 1932 but will have to re-think that as why would he have not altered it in 9yrs. Also why would it have taken 7 yrs to go back to probate, yes there was a war on. and why such a big difference in the money left.

I can´t even begin to work out why money would have gone to 1 spinster sister leaving the other 2 spinsters and a married sister out. I know there was a rift in the family when John Joseph married as his mother (Emily) fell out with his wife. This rift of siblings was healed on Harry´s death but I don´t know which camps the great aunts and Uncle fell in.