RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: helvissa on Monday 27 September 10 10:26 BST (UK)
-
The Probate Calendar on Ancestry starts in 1861, and I'm looking for the will of someone who died in 1859 (so they're not on Archives either!). I've found their burial (12th Feb 1859 in Lambeth Norwood), but I'm having trouble finding their death certificate, so I can't really order that first in order to find their address and get their will.
Is the National Probate Calendar readily available in libraries? I'm faffing about with Birmingham Central Library's catalogue and they've got lots of probate but doesn't look like they've got the national one.
(sorry, I've possibly posted this in the wrong place!)
-
Hi
You could ask the Birmingham Probate Registry whether they keep the calenders that far back and if not who they pass them on to.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/Search.do?court_id=57
Andy
-
Good idea. Thing is, I'm looking for someone who lived in London. Basically, he's living in London in 1851, and is buried (or least, it's pretty likely to be him) in 1859. He had lived in Lambeth, and was buried in Norwood Cemetery, but his 'residence' is given as Gravesend in Kent.
I suppose another route would be a visit to the cemetery, but I wasn't sure how many of those older graves are left, especially with legible inscriptions!
Would I be seriously irritating the York probate people if I sent them £5 and asked them to look for William Clement, died Feb 1859 in London or Kent? I suppose that might be enough info for them but I don't want to be *that person*, if you see what I mean! If it is sufficient info though I shall duly post them a cheque!
-
The Probate Calendar is bassed on when probate was given not when the person died, so it is still worth checking as it can take some time to get probate.
-
Hi
The calender is national so even if he died in London if there was probate he should be in it.
Andy
-
hartryyrtrah: I've had a look on the Ancestry thingy for William Clement died 1859 - two come up, but neither are apparently my fella, so if there was a will, probate must've been 1859 or 1860. I'm fairly sure there will be a will though as he part-owned The Observer and Bell's Life in London with his two half-brothers (which is why I'm interested in reading the will, if I'm honest!). I think they'd sold some of their interests by 1857 though,
andycand: oh, ok, I shall ring them up and find out - thanks! :)
-
Have you tried your main library? The National Probate Calendar is available on microfiche at my library. Unfortunately, I can't go and have a look for you as the library is closed until about the New Year for renovation or something, and although the local library is open, it doesn't have the microfiche.
Lizzie
-
I think I might give Bham Central a tinkle and see if they have it - they seem to have vast quantities of stuff on their catalogue about wills but it's one of these imprecise google-style searches whcih people are so obsessed wtih these days, even though you can't control it as you would a google search! *grumble*
Thank you for offering to look, anyway.
I think I've just discovered something else about this chap anyway - he remarried a few months after the 1851 census and had at least one more child. Of course, that probably would've been apparent from the will, but now I know...
-
The probate calendars on Ancestry is a work in progress,they say on their website " Our collection covers 80 years from 1861 to 1941. We currently do not have the books for the years 1858-1860 and there are some gaps for the years 1863, 1868, 1873, 1876, 1877, 1883, 1888, 1899-1903 and 1910-1911. However, we hope to add records for these years as soon as possible."
Not sure when they will have the rest of the years................but maybe one day you'll be lucky ;D
Carol
-
I should be able to chck the calendars at Holborn later this week.
I'll let you know
Dawn
-
Carol: I just don't get why they missed those two years out! Booo!
Dawn: if it's not a huge pain for you, I'd be really grateful if you could have a look. Thank you. :) His 1851 address is 5 St George's Place, which I suppose might show up in the calendar. His wife at the time of his death was Charlotte Augusta Clement, who might appear as the widow, of course. His residence will be Kent or Surrey, I suspect.
-
I actually managed to go just after I posted earlier.
I checked 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862 and 1863 but there were no entries so unless the will was proved years later, possibly due to business interests, there isn't one where you'd expect it to be.
I also looked for a will in the Times but couldn't instantly see one mentioned although his death notice is printed there.
Dawn
-
Thank you!
What date was his death notice printed? I've got access to The Times at work so can go and have a look tomorrow.
-
Wednesday, Feb 9th, 1859, his death is listed with others on the 6th.
-
Great, thanks! Does the entry for his death give much info?
-
On the 6th inst at Rosherville, near Gravesend, William Clement Esq., of 170, Strand, aged 51
-
Thanks! That's interesting because it ties in with the Norwood burial record, which gave his residence as Gravesend. 170 Strand was the office of The Observer! Despite everyone giving it as their home address, no one lives in it on the 1841 and 1851 census (unless they were busy, it being a Sunday night and them running a Sunday paper!), and when someone does in 1861, it's not the Clements.
I think I've now found his death certificate at least - there's a Mar qtr 1859 Wm Clement death in N. Aylesford, which seems to be the right area.
I wondered if he died intestate? His half-brother George died in 1861, aged 47, and he did have a will (he died in the November and probate was granted on 2 Jan 1862). I've sent off for that so maybe that'll reveal something.
-
If he died suddenly, he may not have made a will, however, if he was a man of some substance then I would have thought there may have been letters of administration; apparently not.
-
As we know from Heir Hunters today,so many people do not make a will,expecting that the money will just go to family automatically.It isn't always that simple ;)
I expect the same thing happened back then too.
Carol
-
It does seem a bit odd.... By 1861, his widow is a "fund holder" and in 1871 an annuitant. She died in 1887 and I haven't turned up anything in the probate calendar for her either.
I just wonder if someone filed his stuff under "Clements" rather than "Clement"!
Yeah, that's true! ;) Clearly some money did end up transferred to his wife, though.
-
Even if someone died intestate, they should appear in the Probate Calendar when their letters of administration go through. I'd have thought this would be especially true of someone of some substance as this chap seems to be. I've found a relative of mine in the NPC who didn't leave a will but did have letters of administration granted, and his estate was all of £3 6s!
Most of the time in my experience the people most likely not to feature in the NPC are (a) the very poor, with no estate to leave, (b) people who died before the age of 21, (c) married women before the Married Women's Property Act (1881, I think), and (d) people who had no assets in England and Wales. That's not to say there weren't glitches in the system, though, or people whose deaths and wills were dealt with without officialdom knowing about it. Again, I'd be surprised if the latter applied in this case, especially since his death was obviously registered.
-
I have to say, I didn't realise that they still appear in the probate if they died intestate. Good to know!
Hmmm... this is very strange indeed! Bell's Life in London carried on in the family, apparently. This shows the ownership of the paper - from 1852 (when their father Wm Innell Clement died) to 1883 (the last Clement brother died in 1884), the paper was owned by "the Clement brothers" (Wm Innell's sons):
http://www.victorianperiodicals.com/series3/showarticlespecial.asp?id=99192
William jnr's sons Thomas & William are newspaper proprietors on the 1881 census, and from what's been said from personal memory, it was probably Bell's Life in London that they part-owned; presumably controlling their late father's interest, I would imagine, under the "Clement brothers" ownership (with their father's brothers - their male cousins were only newspaper clerks, so didn't own the papers unlike Thomas & William). By 1891, Thomas is a wine merchant, the Clements lost/sold it when it was taken over by ('absorbed') by Sporting Life in 1886.
I'd hoped William 2nd's will might show a bit more! Oh well.....
There's a note on Wm Innell's will - something happened in 1857, 5 years after his death, but the scan isn't clear enough to read it properly. From other evidence, I think it's to do with the sale of The Observer. It looks to me like they sold it because it never made much money and had to be propped up by the government, whereas Bell's was quite popular and presumably made money for them. I was thinking there were other titles the Clements owned, but I haven't been able to find out, other than the ones Wm Innell owned.
I'm just horrendously nosey, to be quite honest.
-
I have to say, I didn't realise that they still appear in the probate if they died intestate. Good to know!
I don't know whether they all do. I've certainly found numerous people who didn't make wills in there, but that doesn't mean everybody with something to leave is included. In particular I've found references to servicemen who died in WW1 very young without having made wills -- these are often useful records as well because they can give more precise places of death than the Commonwealth War Graves Commission often has (it will tell you where they're buried, rather than where they died).
On the subject of the NPC, does anyone know why it stops at 1943? (It is 1943, even though Ancestry doesn't have 1942/3 yet, as I remember getting the details of my great grandmother's probate out of the microfiche version at the FRC, and she died in 1943.) Was there a change in system at that point, or is it a privacy thing and later years will become available when it's deemed suitable?
-
Ah... there might be one of those here as William's nephew was in the army and died in Barbados aged 23.
I thought it migth be a privacy issue as well, regarding the available dates.
-
This suddenly gets very interesting....
I saw someone look up something in the London Gazette. I didn't realise you could do this, and so what do I find?
http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/22279/pages/2498
I find:
"PURSUANT to an Order of the High Court of Chancery,
made in the matter of the estate of William
Clement, late of Rosherville, in the parish of Northfleet,
in the county of Kent, Esquire, deceased, and in a cause
between William Charles Clement and Thomas Samuel
Clement, plaintiffs, against Charlotte Augusta Clement
defendant, the creditors of William Clement, formerly of
Eastland House, Dulwich, in the county of Surrey, then of
Cavendish-villa, Ramsgate, in the county of Kent, and late
of Rosherville, aforesaid, who died on or about the 6th day
of February, 1859, are, by their Solicitors, on or before
the 26th day of July, 1859, to come in and prove their
debts at the chambers of the Vice-Chancellor Sir John
Stuart, No. 12, Old-square, Lincoln's-inn, Middlesex, or in
default thereof they will be peremptorily excluded from the
benefit of the said Order. Tuesday, the 2nd day of
August, 1859, at twelve o'clock at noon, at the said chambers,
is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the
claims.—Dated this 21st day of June, 1859."
This is William's sons William and Thomas, going to court against their stepmother, Charlotte Augusta, née Ehn.
I'm not entirely sure what this means - but at the mention of creditors, does this mean that William died in debt?
Is there some way of finding out the outcome? I've looked and there's no further mention of it in the London Gazette.
Edit to add: this is Chancery, I think, having googled the name of this fella: Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart. Google books have got some Chancery cases - they have Clement v Maddick when William's brothers took some publishers to court. But nothing on the case here.
-
This is rather nifty... I've just found Thomas Clement again:
http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/22979/pages/3015
Although not to do with his father's business.
-
I'm very thick... I didn't realise I could get the online version of the historical Observer and Guardian where I work. I've found some interesting stuff, but alas, I haven't found anything else about this court business.
-
I've now got William's death certificate: the informant was C J Pinching, who appears on the 1861 census as Charles John Pinching, a surgeon - he was present at the death.
The cause of death is:
"Disease of the brain of long standing. Bronchitis 5 days."
Poor bloke!
Obviously this is one of those fabulously flabby Victorian causes of death (at least it wasn't phthysis...) - I suppose it could be brain cancer? I'm also wondering if it euphemistic for a mental illness, as in all those people in Victorian novels suffering from "brain fever".
The thing is, if this disease was of long standing, why hadn't he done his will? Or bearing in mind the above court summons, do we suppose there was a will but his sons felt that their stepmother had influenced it and been prejudicial to them?
The certificate is a typed one rather than a copy of the actual handwritten one - not really sure why, other than that there's an error because he was initially registered as William Clements aged 52, which has been corrected to 51. So there's addenda down the side.
-
"PURSUANT to an Order of the High Court of Chancery,
made in the matter of the estate of William
Clement, late of Rosherville, in the parish of Northfleet,
in the county of Kent, Esquire, deceased, and in a cause
between William Charles Clement and Thomas Samuel
Clement, plaintiffs, against Charlotte Augusta Clement
defendant, the creditors of William Clement, formerly of
Eastland House, Dulwich, in the county of Surrey, then of
Cavendish-villa, Ramsgate, in the county of Kent, and late
of Rosherville, aforesaid, who died on or about the 6th day
of February, 1859, are, by their Solicitors, on or before
the 26th day of July, 1859, to come in and prove their
debts at the chambers of the Vice-Chancellor Sir John
Stuart, No. 12, Old-square, Lincoln's-inn, Middlesex, or in
default thereof they will be peremptorily excluded from the
benefit of the said Order. Tuesday, the 2nd day of
August, 1859, at twelve o'clock at noon, at the said chambers,
is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the
claims.—Dated this 21st day of June, 1859."
This is William's sons William and Thomas, going to court against their stepmother, Charlotte Augusta, née Ehn.
I'm not entirely sure what this means - but at the mention of creditors, does this mean that William died in debt?
Is there some way of finding out the outcome? I've looked and there's no further mention of it in the London Gazette.
Edit to add: this is Chancery, I think, having googled the name of this fella: Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart. Google books have got some Chancery cases - they have Clement v Maddick when William's brothers took some publishers to court. But nothing on the case here.
Hi...
Could it be that the sons were the "creditors" or at least claiming to be, and they were being invited, by this ad in the paper, to go and prove their "debt" ie, they were saying that their father owed them money, and were therefore going after the widow?