<<Today a will is not valid for many reasons, of which one is failure to name an executor. So while there is a will it is not a legally realised one, and so in legal terms the testator has died "intestate" and letters of administration, with a will attached (and the terms of which must be met) are granted instead of probate of the will itself. I am not sure that nowadays the minority of the executor would prove a bar to the vaidity of the will - just that the minor would have to have someone to act for them. So either this was different at the time, or perhaps the other will was not "legal" for some other of the many reasons - not signed, not properly witnessed, not dated...?>> Hello Polly, Yes, that's pretty much what I suppose must be the case here. But back in the late 16C the formalities required for a valid will were few compared to today, and I think many other probate courts of the period would have accepted these two Crumpler wills. They might have issued letters of administration with will annexed, rather than probate, but I'm not sure they would have described making a will appointing an underage executor as dying intestate - but then again, perhaps that was the practice of the Dean of Salisbury's peculiar. Matt