Same name appears as Beneficiary on multiple Probate records in same town in same era (UK)...

Hello… I was searching for a United Kingdom relative - a few generations previous - and the Event Type 'Probate' came up with a 'Beneficiary's Name' that had no obvious connection with immediate relatives that I was aware of. I did a bit of searching in different directions - and found that the person named, appears as 'Beneficiary's Name' or 'Second Beneficiary's Name' on numerous Probate records in the same town around the same time (1910s-1920s). Given that I imagine he wasn't related to any of these people, is there a logical reason as to why this would be? Apologies if I am missing something really obvious, but I've ruled out in my mind things like him perhaps being their doctor or solicitor etc - but could it be something like that? Thank you for any thoughts.
Best Answer
-
"… I've ruled out in my mind things like him perhaps being their doctor or solicitor etc … "
I believe you may have been fooled by FamilySearch's refusal to provide correct descriptions for the England and Wales, National Index of Wills and Administrations, 1858-1957 collection. They claim that one of the data items is Beneficiary's Name.
No it isn't. The item in question is the Executor / Administrator of the Estate who has been granted probate. No-one can possibly say who the beneficiaries are without consulting the actual will itself - beneficiaries are not listed on will / probate calendars in the UK.
FS have been told again and again of the misdirection but nothing has happened to correct the label. The values are correct - it's only the label.
Clearly, as in your case, researchers can be misled and have their time wasted. The chap in question in your example is probably a solicitor, accountant, bank manager or similar local worthy. You might see if you can get hold of any directories to follow up on who they are. (And well done for locating the other entries for your unknown person!)
8
Answers
-
Thank you so much - that makes total sense. Thinking of typical UK practice in such matters - especially historically - I would predict the name common across multiple persons would then be the solicitor. I was certainly fooled by the 'beneficiary' title for sure! Thank you very much.
1 -
As @Adrian Bruce1 points out:
FS have been told again and again of the misdirection but nothing has happened to correct the label. The values are correct - it's only the label.
So, why, after all these reports (now going back several years) has this totally misleading term of "Beneficiary" not been substituted? The correct term that would cover all these probate records should strictly be "Executor / Administrator", as the former word applies where there has been a will and the latter where an individual has died intestate.
Please, @SerraNola or @Ashlee C. would you please confirm this matter is being escalated to the appropriate FS team. The collection is titled "England and Wales, National Index of Wills and Administrations, 1858-1957" and is found at https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/2451051.
This is a metadata issue affecting, at the last count, 8,572,772 records. I'm sure FamilySearch senior management would be horrified that this matter is continuing to mislead its patrons, in spite or the relatively simple remedy required to address this long-standing issue. Thank you.
Here is an example to illustrate the problem, the "offending word" being "Beneficiary", which is used in each of the 8 million + records in this collection. The "cover-all" term (covering both grants of probate and administrations) should strictly be "Executor(s) / Administrator", but the word Beneficiary is never found in the original index (see https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/search-results) and is a complete misnomer.
How the original record appears:
3 -
To be clear - the England and Wales, National Index of Wills and Administrations, 1858-1957 collection records the probate calendars for England & Wales over that time period. Those probate calendars contain only the executors / administrators of the estates. The calendars document the grants of probate / administration. They do not document the contents of the wills.
If anyone were to examine and index the contents of the actual wills themselves, then, and only then, would it be (sort of) possible to index the beneficiaries. I write "sort of possible" because even if you read the will, there is no guarantee that you will get the names of all the beneficiaries - they might be described but not named. For example, the testator might leave a life interest in his estate to his named daughter and add that on her death, her part of the estate should be distributed firstly to any of her legitimate children, else… Those legitimate children would be described with a phrase like that but cannot be named by the testator since they haven't been born yet. Indeed, they might never be born.
Since the England and Wales, National Index of Wills and Administrations, 1858-1957 collection indexes the probate calendars and not the contents of the wills themselves, the subtleties of the previous paragraph don't matter to this issue.
2 -
@GlynMoxham @Adrian Bruce1 @Paul W It was never a question that this is an error affecting millions of records well-used by researchers. It is also an issue in the Ireland Calendar of Wills and Administrations.
I have read through the previous requests for engineering to make changes, going back as far as 2013. The case was never made (on the job ticket) for how the word "beneficiary" can lead to false assumptions. I will take your feedback to engineers and see if we can try again.
4 -
@SerraNola - I'd be grateful if you could try again. One of the reasons I commented on this case was that this was a clear demonstration of how Glyn had his time wasted by the incorrect label.
4 -
Thank you @Adrian Bruce1. That clears up a puzzle that I had.
It probably should go without saying, but there is a Second Beneficiary's Name item which is in the same boat. I had wondered why it appears relatively rarely.
1 -
As suggested earlier, any confusion over such issues can be easily resolved by viewing the image via the free-to-view UK government website at Search probate records for documents and wills (England and Wales).
In your example, you just have to type in the name of the testator and the year probate / letters of administration was granted (1867) to see a summary of his probate record. In this case, it is interesting to read that this document refers to "Letters of Administration (with the will annexed)" regarding a death that took place some twenty one years previously and advises the former grant took place in February 1848. However, details of the original 1848 record (of his 1846 death) have not been indexed, so all the paperwork appears to have been collected together and filed in 1867. If you have a particular interest in this record, the original papers are obtainable through the government agency for a very low fee.
Incidentally, the item referred to (on the Find A Will website) shows Elizabeth Brown (his widow) and Michael Lewis Brown (his son) were indeed executors of the original will of the testator and that Michael Lewis Brown (senior) was a resident of, and died in, Oxford. All illustrating how useful it always is to view the original sources of FamilySearch's records.
3 -
@Paul W advised "… As suggested earlier, any confusion over such issues can be easily resolved by viewing the image via the free-to-view UK government website at … "
Although, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea and thinks that FS don't need to do anything after all, I'd point out that there are many examples of threads in this community where people don't even consult the image on FamilySearch, never mind an image on another site (which, to be fair, some may not know about). Indeed I even saw a thread where a user proclaimed that they were too busy to consult the FS image - the index was all they used. Such people will still be getting things wrong when entering data into FamilyTree.
If anyone is interested in the probate of Michael Lewis Brown, the original 1848 grant of probate is visible in Ancestry's "England & Wales, Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, 1384-1858" - however, don't try searching on the date of death, because Ancestry excluded the year of death from the index - possibly because they thought it must have been an error, having the death in 1846 and the probate in 1867???
Another interesting (maybe!) aspect is that the current FS display of the England and Wales, National Index of Wills and Administrations, 1858-1957 collection doesn't appear to go on to Third Beneficary (sic), etc. I found one example where 3 executors were documented as Beneficiary's Name, Second Beneficiary's Name and
Additional Person's Name. What happens with a 4th executor, I've no idea…Quite interesting - I don't remember seeing a double grant of probate referenced before.
3