Probate entry for Mary Katherine Augusta Beisiegel, 1922

[lucymags]

Just wondering if anyone has any access to useful details on this document:
Name: Mary Katherine Augusta Beisiegel
Death Date: 26/03/1922
Death Place: Rochester, Kent, England
Probate Date: 23/05/1922
Registry: London, England

Edit:
I have also just found one for her father, Georg Heinrich Carl Beisiegel, in Rutland, 28 Sep 1904, beneficiaries Sarah Susannah Beisiegel and Phillip Karl Beisiegel. I don't suppose there's much other information there, but if anyone can see anything useful, that would be good too.

[dawnsh]

To see who she left her estate to, you'll need to order a copy from hmcts, you get a pdf copy for £10

https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Calendar

[CarolA3]

I have also just found one for her father, Georg Heinrich Carl Beisiegel, in Rutland, 28 Sep 1904, beneficiaries Sarah Susannah Beisiegel and Phillip Karl Beisiegel. I don't suppose there's much other information there, but if anyone can see anything useful, that would be good too.

When the probate calendar says 'Probate to (names/s)', it means that those people are the executors.  They have the task of distributing the deceased person's estate in accordance with the will.  Executors might or might not be beneficiaries; you'd need the will itself to find out who had what.

Carol

[lucymags]

Ah, great for all of that info, Carol and Dawn. Useful detail, and handy to know how to order a copy of probates for future reference - I will make a note. (I don't need them for the purposes of the current exercise, as they're only peripheral to my tree but I'm helping to provide some more info for a local history researcher.)

The info for Georg's probate came from FamilySearch, which listed those two as beneficiaries, btw - but that might be incorrect.

[dawnsh]

Here's his entry from the hmcts site

[lucymags]

Thanks again, Dawn - that's great! 

[CarolA3]

The info for Georg's probate came from FamilySearch, which listed those two as beneficiaries, btw - but that might be incorrect.

It's unlikely (!) that FamilySearch would have spent £10 to confirm the beneficiaries.  They've quite possibly misunderstood the wording of the calendar entry - they wouldn't be the first to do that.

Sometimes the executor is a bank or a solicitor and we see people wondering why their ancestors 'gave it all to the bank and left nothing to the children'

Carol

[lucymags]