Meaning of to "prove" a will

Diyanta

Hi, Hopefully someone can help...
I have some trouble understanding some of the following clauses.  The main the issue is that I don't quite get this term to "prove" a will, and neither can I find any concise definition for it, and so in particular the later part of (c) makes no sense to me.
(a) I APPOINT [person A] to be the sole Executor of this Will but if that appointment fails for any reason I APPOINT [persons B & C] to be the Executors and Trustees of this Will but if that appointment fails for any reason I APPOINT the persons who at the date of my death are the Directors, Members and Beneficial Owners of any share of the [law firm or its successor] to be the Executors of this my Will and I express the wish that two and only two of them shall prove this Will
(b) As Trustees of this Will I appoint the persons who take out a Grant of Probate by virtue of the foregoing appointment of Executors
(c) The expression “my Trustees” in this my Will means my personal representatives and the Trustees of this Will from time to time (whether original or substituted) but after there has been a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration in respect of my estate it shall not include, by virtue of the foregoing appointment of Executors, any person appointed an Executor who for the time being has not proved this Will
If there's any useful discussion on this elsewhere already please do point me at it.  Thanks.

Devongardener

I would think that means applying for probate.

Keep_pedalling

Devongardener said:

I would think that means applying for probate.

It does, although I would not expect to find such an antiquated term on a modern will. 

Newly_retired

I guess c rules out any named as executors who are not named in the Grant of Probate. So if for example there are two relatives named as executors who are prepared to do the job, then the solicitor is not required, leaving just the two as Trustees to carry out the terms of the will.

TBagpuss

Newly_retired said:

I guess c rules out any named as executors who are not named in the Grant of Probate. So if for example there are two relatives named as executors who are prepared to do the job, then the solicitor is not required, leaving just the two as Trustees to carry out the terms of the will.

Yes, and it provided for the partners of a firm of solicitors to act as executors so it makes clear that even if there are (say) 6 partners, only two will act as executors and then those two, rather than all 6, will be trustees.

Re: the original question - providing a will is just obtaining probate. (technically, the executors by getting probate are getting legal proof the will is valid and that they are named executors) 

Diyanta

Hi,
Thanks for all the replies.
So if I understand correctly, (b) says that of those listed in (a) is granted probate shall become trustee(s), and the later part of (c) says this shall exclude any of those that have not been granted probate - which seems a bit redundant to me.
It's a simple estate and the main concern of the person this is for is that they want the solicitor as trustee only if A, B & C fail.
I edited my original post as I realised that para (a) may have lacked context due to word snipping.
I wonder in light my edited post, Newly_retired, if you would still say it needs two relatives named as executors to avoid needing the solicitor?
Thanks again!

GrumpyDil

It's using archaic structure which isn't helpful to laypeople but.
1) Person A can be a sole executor, although that isn't ideal if any real property is involved (a house etc)
2) If person A cannot or will not act then Person B and Person C act as joint executors.
3) If that doesn't happen then the solicitors firm steps in, but only two of them.

The final bit just means that the trustees of the will can only be the executors so either person A or person B and C or the two members of the solicitors firm acting as trustees. 

Diyanta

Hi,

Thank you all for the explanations.  Much appreciated.