I cannot understand this will.
 

I'm having trouble with a will.

The will Zoe kindly transcribed for me was fairly straight forward. Elizabeth Naylor (nee Eyre) was a widow with one living child, Elizabeth (wife of Myles Ariel).
Elizabeth Naylor leaves a couple of people some money, then leaves a fair bit of money in stocks, etc to her grandchildren, either when they attain 21 or when the marry.

She then leaves all her real estate to her daughter for the term of her natural life, then after her death, to the grandchildren.

Could that stand up in court???? OR.... would Elziabeth Ariel then be able to do what she wanted with it in her will??

This is in 1830.

Then in 1837....Elizabeth Ariel dies, leaving everything to her husband, Myles for his natural life, then after his death, to their children.

BUT..

On the end of Elizabeth Ariel's will is this....

On the 1st of 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 having 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 appears.


Now.....Elizabeth Ariel died 1837 (I have the cert). Her widower, Myles remarries in Feb 1839, so he's married again by the above date.

Could it be that married women weren't entitled to leave wills??? Everything mentioned in the will was given to Elziabeth by her mother or father independent of any current or future husband.

Any ideas???

Don't have expertise in this area....but I understood that the property of women passed, on marriage, to their husbands, unless it was tied up in some manner in the marriage settlements.
They must have been able to leave property, as I have one of my Goulds, a considerable heiress, who married into the aristocracy twice, survived both husbands and had no children. She left all her wealth to a Gould cousin on her death in 1757.

Strikes me that she was entitled to leave a will of what to do with her money but for some reason she was adjudged to have died intestate. So I would presume that Myles contested the terms of the will and won the day by having it effectively 'annulled'.
I'm not a legal expert but that's how I read it, especially if the money then went down his line rather than where Elizabeth said it should go after his death.
Margaret

Thanks Bev and Margaret.

I can only come to the conclusion that Myles' new wife, Lucretia, wanted the will contested.

Myles was a wealthy man in his own right and Lucretia's family seemed well off.

Myles was dead less than a year after in 1840 and the children got nothing that I know of. I do know Myles' daughter in law tried to get some of the money in the late 1880s after Lucretia died.

I just can't work out how a court could stop the children getting the money that their grandmother had left them if their mother died????

I've seen that kind of bequest in a lot of wills, so I'm sure that was a standard kind of thing.

I wonder why Elizabeth Ariel was declared intestate then??

Might be interesting to see if you could find the case records. They may be in the National Archives if there was a law suit.
Margaret

It was Elizabeth's "personal estate" for which she was declared intestate, though, not her "real estate". Would you like to email the will etc to me and I'll see if I can work out what was going on?

Thanks KiteRunner. Thanks to Zoe, I could email both.

I'm afarid I don't seem to get the gist of the legal jargin.

Margaret...............that's a good idea. I have searched for other "Ariel" documents and never found anything to do with this, but another look wouldn't hurt.

Email sent.................watch this space!!! LOL.