Lost family in 1881 & 1911 census - Harrison

[arthurk]

Colin,
Are you confusing Probate (those who carry out the wishes/legal duties etc. of the deceased) with benificiaries?

Not exactly. What I have discovered more often than not was that, if the wife was alive, or they were still married, then the wife was listed as the executor. Since his wife was 30 years younger than he, her death seems unlikely.

Like it or not, the Probate Calendar gives the names of the Executors/Administrators, and not the beneficiaries. In this case, JWH left a fairly sizeable estate, and however much he may have loved his wife, he might have thought she lacked the knowledge or experience to handle such a sum. Or perhaps he was just one of those men who think that anything financial is beyond a woman's capabilities.

There's also the possibility, with a large estate, that it involved setting up some kind of a trust for the benefit of his wife and/or children. One possibility might be that his wife would receive an income during her life or widowhood, and then the capital would pass to any surviving children; by doing this he could prevent the capital coming under his wife's full control and possibly falling into the hands of any future husband she might have, while also ensuring that his children would definitely receive something after her death. Trustees are often the same people as the executors, and depending on the provisions of the trust it might have been thought better for the wife and children not to be appointed to those roles.

With a will, the only way to be sure of who inherited what is to get hold of a copy. Because of the many possible ways in which people could dispose of their assets, "more often than not" isn't really enough to base an assumption on.

Arthur

[Colin Rowledge]

With a will, the only way to be sure of who inherited what is to get hold of a copy. Because of the many possible ways in which people could dispose of their assets, "more often than not" isn't really enough to base an assumption on.

Arthur

I agree Arthur, about the will and the assumption I made. This is a somewhat distant relation and while he had every right to deal with his assets as he wanted,his relationship with his family - see my post #20 - could have had some effect upon his decisions.

Colin

[arthurk]

That kind of thing occurred to me after I'd written as well. If there was little love lost between May/Louisa and the children of the first marriage (which wouldn't have been hard to imagine since she was of a similar age to them), he might have thought it wise to appoint executors/trustees from outside the family to deal with his estate.

Arthur

[Colin Rowledge]

That kind of thing occurred to me after I'd written as well. If there was little love lost between May/Louisa and the children of the first marriage (which wouldn't have been hard to imagine since she was of a similar age to them), he might have thought it wise to appoint executors/trustees from outside the family to deal with his estate.

Arthur

Not so sure about 'little love lost' between Louisa May and the children of the 1st marriage. What do you think of the scenario I alluded to in post #10? Could she and John W. jun. have done a runner with Winifred May and his father cut them out of his will and future plans?

All conjecture on my part - maybe I should invest in his death cert. to see who the informant was, eh?

Colin

[arthurk]

Not so sure about 'little love lost' between Louisa May and the children of the 1st marriage. What do you think of the scenario I alluded to in post #10? Could she and John W. jun. have done a runner with Winifred May and his father cut them out of his will and future plans?

Anything's possible: too much love or too little love between Louisa May and JWH junior- who knows? And anyway, as I said, the fact that neither of them was an executor doesn't have to imply that one or both was cut out of the will.

All conjecture on my part - maybe I should invest in his death cert. to see who the informant was, eh?

But that would only give you the name of one family member at most - possibly the one who could most easily get to the register office - and as he died in hospital, there's a chance it wasn't a relative anyway. Only the will is likely to give you any substantial clues as to who did what with whom - and (so long as you can organise a sterling cheque) it's cheaper than a death certificate, though it might take a couple of months longer to arrive.

Arthur

[Colin Rowledge]

Not sure how this will help others to assist me but I have discovered some events regarding John William Harrison junior.

He was born 11 November 1887 in Islington and was baptized on 12 February 1888 in Islington St. Mary.

Then I have him up to 1911, when he is in the 1911 census.

Between the census of 2 April 1911 and the death of his father on 9 December 1924 his life is a mystery. By this time he would be aged 37. I have not found a suitable marriage for him during this period of time.

From the National Probate Calendar, I have found a death that is almost certainly him. There was no will but a letter of administration was granted. He died on 1 May 1949. His residence was 12 Rock Street, London N.4. His estate was 261 pounds 7 shillings and 1 penny. Administration was granted on 22 June 1949 to Edith Maude Collins a widow. This lady is almost certainly his sister.

Edith Maude Harrison married a Maris S. Collins in Barnet RD 4th q. 1921. Maris Collins died age 40 in the same RD in the 1st q. 1937

Colin

[ngmcminn]

Colin

I have just discovered your thread and read it with interest as May Louisa Harrison nee Breed, was my maternal grandmother.
If you are still interested in the offspring from the marriage betweeh John William Harrison snr and May Louisa
I can provide further detail.

Neil McMinn

[Colin Rowledge]

Hi Neil
It's been a while since I've looked at this side/branch of my tree. Let me look into what I have developed since my last post 3 years ago and if there is some need to make further contact, I'll start a conversation with you. OK?

Colin