None of these three people exist. Naomi Pemberton, Rachel Hargreave and Susan Marchant are fictional. Every name, address and figure on this page is invented; every statute and case cited is real.
Copying a specimen word for word is exactly what the wording is written to allow — but only where your own facts match. Nobody who is given anything under a will may witness it — nor may their husband, wife or civil partner.
This page is a guide only — a starting point, not legal advice, and does not replace a solicitor. Where your facts differ from all three households — a second family, a business, property abroad, a child who needs a trust — these specimens are not safe to copy; use the blank template with a solicitor, or a solicitor alone.
Three finished wills, not one blank. The blank will template gives a reader a will to fill in; the mirror wills template gives a couple a matched pair. This page shows what a completed will reads like for three households a first-time reader can recognise themselves in — a single person with no children, a couple with young children, and a widow with adult children, a stepson and an estranged son — with every clause explained underneath it.
Fictional people, real law. Naomi Pemberton, Rachel Hargreave and Susan Marchant do not exist. Every name, address and figure is invented; every statute and case is real, fetched and linked.
Read the one that matches your household, then use the blank template to write your own. Copying a specimen word for word, with your own names in the blanks, is exactly what the clause wording is written to allow — but only where your facts match. Every specimen ends with a list of what it does not cover.
One will of a mirror pair, not both. Household B shows Rachel's will only. Thomas's mirror will exists, identical in structure with the names and roles reversed; the complete matched pair, and the rules that are special to a couple, live on the mirror wills template. This page links there rather than repeating it.
The same seven clauses, drafted differently each time — and the differences explained, not hidden. A guardianship clause that is included (B) against one that is correctly omitted (A, C); an open class of children (B) against two named adults (C); a sole executor with a substitute (A) against joint executors, twice, for two different reasons (B: a trust for minors; C: a house that will need selling); an equal split (B) against a deliberate 60/40 (C); silence about a relative (A) against a named exclusion (C).
Nobody who is given anything under a will may witness it — nor may their husband, wife or civil partner. Wills Act 1837 s.15 (civil partners: Civil Partnership Act 2004, Sch. 4 para. 3). The will stays valid; that gift is void. Every specimen's attestation page carries the rule in red, with the names it rules out for that household.
What a will cannot do, shown where it arises. A joint tenant's share of a home and the money in a joint account pass to the survivor outside the will (B). Funeral wishes are not binding on an executor and often arrive too late inside a will (C). Passwords never go in a will — it becomes a public document at probate (B). A will cannot make anyone look after a pet — it can only give the pet, and money, to a person (A, C).
Not one household, three — read the one that matches yours. Every rival page fetched for this page shows only one scenario; this page shows three, side by side.
| Household | Who they are | Executor pattern | Guardians | Residue shape | What it teaches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naomi Pemberton | A single person, no children, no partner | Sole executor (her sister), one substitute (a friend) | None — clause 4 omitted, correctly, not left blank | Person → backup person → charity, each conditioned on survival | Why silence about an estranged sibling is the ordinary, low-drama choice |
| Rachel Hargreave | A couple with two young children (one will of a mirror pair) | Spouse, then two substitutes acting jointly (a trust for minors) | Named — sister and her husband, jointly | Spouse → open class of children, equally, with grandchildren substituted in | Why a joint home and a joint account pass outside the will entirely |
| Susan Marchant | A widow, two adult children, a stepson, a son she excludes | Two children acting jointly (a house that will need selling), then a friend | None — all three children are adults | An unequal 60/40 split, each share with its own fallback, no share can lapse into intestacy | Why a deliberate, stated exclusion is the right tool for a child the will leaves out |
Naomi Grace Pemberton, born 14 August 1989, unmarried, no children, no partner, of 22 Foxglove Road, Bristol BS6 7QS, owns her flat outright with no joint owner, has a cat named Marmalade, and made this will on 3 March 2026. Her sister Eleanor ("Ellie") Grace Pemberton, of 41 Birch Way, Bristol BS7 8LN, is her closest relative; her closest friend is Priya Anjali Shah, of 6 Orchard Court, Bristol BS8 2RT; her nephew Jack Ellery is Ellie's son. She has an older brother, Callum, from whom she has been estranged for six years — the will does not mention him. She wants to support Cancer Research UK.
Naomi Pemberton is not a real person. Every name, address and figure in this will is invented.
Full name, date of birth and address rule out confusion with anyone of a similar name. "Of sound mind … freely" is a contemporaneous record of capacity (the Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 test: knowing that a will is being made and what it does, broadly what is owned, who might expect to benefit, and no disorder of mind distorting the judgement) and of the absence of pressure. Nothing about being single changes this clause — it is the one every will on this page shares.
This is Naomi's first will, so there is nothing yet to revoke — the clause is still included, because a later will needs it to cancel this one, and it costs nothing now. Wills Act 1837 s.20: a will is revoked by a later will or codicil, by a written declaration executed like a will, or by destruction with intent.
With no spouse, the natural first choice is the closest relative she trusts — a sibling rather than a parent, because parents are more likely to die before an adult child. The substitute is a friend, not another relative, so one accident cannot remove both. Without a named executor the court appoints an administrator in the intestacy priority order, which would not necessarily be Ellie. The 28-day wording stops the appointment passing to Ellie's own executors if she dies shortly after Naomi. A sole executor is safe here: Ellie is also the residuary beneficiary, so nothing needs two trustees' receipts.
This clause exists only in a will where the testator has children under 18. It appoints who raises them if both parents have died — see Rachel Hargreave's will, Clause 4. Leaving it out is the correct drafting; a guardianship clause that names nobody, or names someone "just in case", creates confusion about whether it was meant to apply. When you copy this will and it has no clause 4, do not leave a numbered gap: renumber the clauses that follow, so your signed will runs 1 to 6 with nothing missing.
The pet: an animal cannot own anything, so a will cannot leave anything "to" a pet. What works is a gift of the animal to a named person — and, if you want to help with the cost, a separate, outright gift of money to the same person. The two are deliberately two lines: money described as "to be used for her care" reads as an attempt to attach a binding purpose, which English trust law will not enforce by accident for a non-charitable purpose like one pet's upkeep (a valid trust for an animal's maintenance is possible, but needs a solicitor, a named trustee and a fixed duration). The cat gift is conditional on Priya being "able and willing" — a condition on who takes, the same safe shape as "is able to take" in Clause 6 — while the money is given regardless, so it is never in doubt. Once the gift takes effect Priya becomes the person responsible for Marmalade in law and owes her a statutory duty of care (Animal Welfare Act 2006 ss.3, 9) — a duty owed to the animal, not to the estate, and not something the will enforces. Wills Act 1837 s.33 does not rescue a gift to a friend if she dies first — only gifts to the testator's own children or descendants — which is why the chapeau says each gift fails if the person dies before me: the cat and the money then fall into residue together.
The charity: the full registered name and the charity number, not the name Naomi knows it by. Charities merge, rebrand and share names; the number is what a bank or the Charity Commission checks. The gift is exempt from inheritance tax outright, whatever its size (Inheritance Tax Act 1984 s.23). It is far too small, against an ordinary estate, to bring the 36% reduced rate into play (Sch. 1A: at least 10% of the estate's value after the £325,000 nil-rate band, once the charity gift itself is added back into that figure) — this page says so rather than implying otherwise.
The brother who is not mentioned: Naomi's will does not name Callum and does not say it is excluding him. It simply does not include him, as it does not include everyone else she is leaving nothing to. For an estranged sibling with no dependency on her, silence is the ordinary, low-drama choice. Naming someone in order to exclude them (as Susan Marchant does with her son) is the stronger step, reserved for a child of the deceased — the one relative whose absence looks like a mistake and who can apply under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 regardless. A brother is not on the 1975 Act's list unless he was being maintained by her (s.1(1)(e)).
With no children there is no generation to fall back through, so the chain runs person → backup person → final substitute. The 28 days answer Law of Property Act 1925 s.184: where it cannot be known who died first, the younger is presumed to have survived — without a survivorship period Naomi's estate could pass through Ellie's will to people Naomi never chose, and an estate can otherwise pass twice in quick succession. "Is able to take" / "fails or is void" matter for a reason easy to miss: if Ellie — also named in this clause — were by mistake to witness this will, s.15 would void her gift, and bare "if she does not survive me" wording would not carry the void gift down to Priya; the estate would fall into intestacy under Administration of Estates Act 1925 s.46 — to Naomi's parents, then siblings, in an order she did not choose. A charity as the final substitute is chosen because a charity cannot die before her — the one name guaranteed to exist when the will is read.
Unlike Rachel's and Susan's wills, this clause has no "if she leaves children of her own" tier, and that is deliberate: Wills Act 1837 s.33 substitutes only a testator's own children or descendants into a lapsed gift, and has no application to a gift to a sister. If Ellie died before Naomi, her children — including Jack, named separately in Clause 5 — would take no part of this residue; it passes straight to Priya. If her life changes: marriage or a civil partnership revokes this will (Wills Act 1837 ss.18, 18B) unless made in expectation of it; a child does not appear in this will automatically, because it names no class of children. Either event means a new will, not an update.
Signed by the above-named Naomi Grace Pemberton as her last will, in our joint presence, and then by us in hers. We were both present at the same time when the testator signed.
Testator's signature and date; Witness 1 and Witness 2 — signature, full name, address, occupation. Witnesses shown as placeholders — a neighbour, a colleague — never a named suggestion.
In red on the attestation page: Ellie, Priya and Jack — and their husbands, wives or civil partners — must not witness; each is given something under this will. Callum could, in law, because he receives nothing; this page notes it and does not recommend it.
Wills Act 1837 s.9 — signed by the testator, in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, each of whom then signs in her presence. The temporary allowance for video witnessing ended 31 January 2024.
Rachel Anne Hargreave, born 3 February 1988, married to Thomas James Hargreave, of 9 Larch Grove, Leeds LS8 3PN, made this will on 15 April 2026. Two children: Freya Hargreave (7) and Oscar Hargreave (4). Home owned as beneficial joint tenants, with a mortgage; a joint current account for household bills. Rachel's sister Charlotte Anne Okoye and her husband Benjamin Kwame Okoye, of 15 Rowan Close, Leeds LS9 4TP, have agreed to be guardians.
This is Rachel's will only. Thomas's mirror will exists — same structure, the names and roles reversed, signed and witnessed separately. The complete matched pair, and the rules special to a couple (mutual wills, engagement, separation, the joint home, dying together), are on the mirror wills template; this page links there and does not repeat them beyond what Rachel's own clauses need.
Rachel Hargreave is not a real person. Every name, address and figure in this will is invented.
As Household A — plus the mirror-pair warning: before signing, read this name aloud and check it is your own. Rachel's and Thomas's wills look almost identical, and a husband and wife have each signed the other's mirror will by mistake and needed the Supreme Court to put it right (Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2).
Rachel and Thomas made these wills on the same day, but each will revokes only that testator's earlier wills — Thomas's will has its own identical Clause 2.
Naming each other is the ordinary choice for a married couple; the clause most often operates after Thomas has already died, which is why the substitute matters. The substitute is two people acting jointly, deliberately: if this clause is ever needed, both parents are gone and the estate includes the family home, held on trust for the children until they are 18. A sole trustee cannot give a valid receipt for the proceeds when land held on trust is sold — Trustee Act 1925 s.14(2) requires two trustees or a trust corporation — so a will naming one substitute forces that person to appoint a second at the worst possible time. Name the same substitutes in both mirror wills.
Children Act 1989 s.5 lets a parent with parental responsibility appoint a guardian by will; the appointment takes effect only once no parent with parental responsibility is left — for Rachel and Thomas, once both have died. It assumes both are the children's legal parents with parental responsibility and no child arrangements ("lives with") order is in force (s.5(7)–(9)); a step-parent without parental responsibility cannot appoint a guardian for the other parent's children this way (s.5(3)). Name the same guardians in both mirror wills, and ask them first.
A named item to a named person, with no age condition. That matters: if Rachel wanted Freya to have the ring at 21 rather than when the estate is wound up, that is no longer a plain specific gift — it is a trust with its own conditions and needs a solicitor. This page shows the simple version deliberately and says where the line falls. Freya is 7: until she is 18 her executors hold the ring for her (Trustee Act 1925 ss.31–32 give them the powers to look after a minor's share in the meantime). If Freya died before Rachel the ring would fall into residue — the chapeau says so; for a gift to a child, s.33 would otherwise carry it to Freya's own children, which is why "unless I say otherwise" is there. The charity gift: registered name and number, exempt under IHTA 1984 s.23.
The 28-day survivorship handles Rachel and Thomas dying together or in close succession (LPA 1925 s.184) and, for a married couple, IHTA 1984 s.18(3) expressly allows a survivorship condition of this length without losing the spouse exemption. "Is able to take" / "fails or is void" carry a void gift down to the children rather than into intestacy. The children are an open class — a third child born or adopted after signing is inside the gift with no redraft. A child who survives Rachel but dies within 28 days is treated like one who died first, so their own children still take — further than Wills Act 1837 s.33 goes by default.
A child under 18 takes at 18; the executors hold the share in the meantime and may use its income for the child's maintenance and education (Trustee Act 1925 s.31) and advance capital early — since 2014, up to the whole share (s.32). Any other age, or any condition, is a trust and needs a solicitor. The final substitute is reached only if the whole family line is gone.
Signed by the above-named Rachel Anne Hargreave as her last will, in our joint presence, and then by us in hers. We were both present at the same time when the testator signed.
Testator's signature and date; Witness 1 and Witness 2 — signature, full name, address, occupation. Witnesses shown as placeholders — a neighbour, a colleague — never a named suggestion.
In red: nobody given anything under this will may witness it, and nor may their husband, wife or civil partner — not Thomas, not Freya or Oscar, not Charlotte. Not Benjamin either — not because he inherits anything himself (he is a substitute executor and guardian, an office, not a gift), but because he is Charlotte's husband, and a gift to a witness's spouse is voided exactly like a gift to the witness (s.15). And before you sign — the name check (Marley v Rawlings).
The house — annotation, not a clause: Rachel and Thomas own their home as joint tenants, so this clause cannot touch Rachel's share at all — it passes to Thomas automatically, outside the will, the moment she dies. If they ever wanted their shares to go to the children directly (common in a second family) the joint tenancy must be severed in writing while both are alive (HM Land Registry form SEV; Practice Guide 24); a will cannot do it.
The joint account — annotation: the balance of a genuinely joint account normally passes to the surviving account holder in the same way, outside the will. Check with the bank rather than assume.
Digital accounts — annotation, never a clause: the executors' authority covers everything Rachel owned, including online banking, the family's photo storage and subscriptions — but passwords never go in a will: once probate is granted a will is a public document anyone can obtain. Each platform's own terms and "legacy contact" processes govern access; no UK statute overrides them. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 (in force 2 December 2025) confirms a digital asset such as a crypto-token can be owned as property — it creates no right of access for an executor. Keep a separate, dated note of accounts and where to find them, and tell your executor where it is.
Susan Patricia Marchant, born 11 May 1955, widow — her husband David Marchant died in 2019; the home they held as joint tenants passed to her then, so she is now sole owner — of 4 Cedar Court, Norwich NR3 1AD, made this will on 12 June 2026. Three adult children: Claire Louise Marchant (46, her daughter, of 18 Linden Grove, Norwich NR2 4AA), Daniel John Whitcombe (48, David's son from his first marriage — Susan raised him from the age of five and he has always called her Mum, but he was never formally adopted — of 71 Mill Lane, Diss IP22 3JB), and Kieran James Marchant (43, her son, estranged for eight years after a family dispute, no contact since). Her friend of forty years is Anne Rosalind Tovey, of 3 Wensum Court, Norwich NR1 4ER. A cat, Bramble. She wants David's watch to go to Daniel, a gift to Marie Curie, and her residue split 60/40 between Claire and Daniel — Claire still has a mortgage, Daniel's is paid off, a reason she has recorded in a letter of wishes but not in the will. She is leaving Kieran nothing.
Susan Marchant is not a real person. Every name, address and figure in this will is invented.
As before. Capacity turns on the Banks v Goodfellow test at the moment of signing, not on age — but a will made later in life, or after illness, is exactly where a short dated note of how the decision was reached, or a solicitor's file note, is harder to challenge than a home-made will's silence. A will that leaves a child out will be read closely; see Clause 6.
Susan and David made mirror wills in 2015. David's did its work in 2019. This clause revokes Susan's own earlier will, which assumed David would still be alive.
Joint, not one plus a backup: Claire and Daniel are the two residuary beneficiaries. Naming them jointly means each sees what the other is doing, and it answers a practical rule: dividing a 60/40 residue that includes Susan's home will very likely mean selling it, and a sole trustee cannot give a valid receipt for the proceeds of land — Trustee Act 1925 s.14(2) requires two trustees or a trust corporation. Naming two from the outset avoids Claire discovering, alone and part-way through a sale, that she needs a second trustee.
Why the substitution is spelt out in two sentences: "in their place" after a joint appointment is ambiguous — does the substitute replace one who drops out, or both? This wording says: one drops out, Anne joins the other; both drop out, Anne acts alone. That covers Claire or Daniel dying within 28 days of Susan, or being unable or unwilling to take up the role at the outset. It does not automatically cover one of them dying, losing capacity, or moving abroad for more than a year once they have taken the grant and the administration is under way — a real possibility if the house sale takes months, as it may. If that happens, the surviving executor can appoint a replacement trustee by a short written deed (Trustee Act 1925 s.36) — a standard step, not a new will, and one to ask a solicitor to draw up — so that two trustees are in place before the sale completes.
Why a friend, and why not Kieran: the obvious lay substitute in this family is the son the will deliberately excludes. Nothing in law bars him — s.15 voids a gift to a witness, not an appointment as executor, and Kieran takes nothing either way — but appointing him over an estate he is excluded from would invite the dispute Clause 6 is written to close. Where there is nobody suitable, a solicitor can be named instead ("the partners at the date of my death in [firm]"), and will charge the estate for the work. A stepson as executor needs no special wording — the relationship has no bearing on who may be appointed.
Where this clause matters — a testator with children under 18 — see Rachel Hargreave's will, Clause 4, including the step-parent limit on who can appoint. When you copy this will, renumber the clauses that follow so nothing looks missing. Even if a grandchild lived with Susan, a grandmother cannot appoint a guardian by will — only a parent with parental responsibility can, Children Act 1989 s.5(3).
The stepson gift: the same mechanism as any named-person gift; nothing about Daniel being a stepson changes it. As with Rachel's ring to Freya, the chapeau means that if Claire died before Susan, the cat and the £500 would fall into residue rather than pass to Claire's own children under Wills Act 1837 s.33 — "unless I say otherwise" is what switches that off. Where the step-relationship does matter is what would happen without a will: a stepchild who was never adopted has no entitlement under the intestacy rules at all (AEA 1925 s.46 sets the order; "issue" there means children and further descendants by birth and — under Adoption and Children Act 2002 s.67 — by adoption; it does not reach a step-child who was never adopted), while Claire and Kieran would take equally. Susan's will is the only thing that gives Daniel anything as of right.
The pet: the cat and the money are two separate outright gifts to the same person, not one gift with money earmarked "for" the animal — see Naomi's will, Clause 5, for why. The charity: registered name and number; exempt under s.23; too small for the 36% rate.
Why the unequal split: English law places no requirement on how residue is divided; reasons never need to appear in the will and usually should not, because a will becomes a public document at probate. Each share now has its own path if it fails: to that person's children, then to the other of them, then to Marie Curie — so no share can ever fall into intestacy, whatever combination of deaths occurs. Susan's reason (Claire's mortgage) lives in a letter of wishes — a private, dated note kept with the will, not part of it, changeable at any time without re-signing anything.
Why "the share their parent would have taken" is written out: for Claire, Wills Act 1837 s.33 would carry a predeceased child's share to her children by default; for Daniel it would not — s.33 applies only to the testator's own children and descendants, and a stepson is neither. Without this paragraph Daniel's 40% would lapse if he died first, whatever his children needed. Why there is a final substitute: "the survivor of them" alone leaves the clause with nowhere to go if both are gone with no children; a charity closes that route.
Why the exclusion is stated: two choices exist for someone you are leaving nothing to — say nothing (Naomi's brother) or name them and say the omission is deliberate. The second is right for a child of the deceased, because a child, whatever their age and however long estranged, can apply for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 s.1(1)(c) — the statute draws no adult or estranged distinction; that lives in s.3 and the cases, above all Ilott v The Blue Cross and others [2017] UKSC 17, where the Supreme Court restored a modest award to an estranged adult daughter against a will leaving everything to charities, and made clear how much weight a testator's clear wishes carry. Had Susan instead left Daniel out, he could not have claimed as "a child" under s.1(1)(c) — an unadopted stepson is not her child in that statute's sense — but he could have applied under s.1(1)(d), which covers anyone the deceased treated as a child of the family in relation to a marriage; that is part of why the will provides for him directly rather than leaving it to be tested. A stated exclusion does not stop a claim or guarantee it fails; it removes the argument that Kieran was forgotten, which is the easiest challenge to bring, and the letter of wishes gives the executors the reasons to put before a court. If Susan expects Kieran to contest, this is not a step to take on a template alone.
The home and inheritance tax: the estate has a £325,000 nil-rate band; leaving a home to a child adds up to £175,000 of residence nil-rate band (IHTA 1984 s.8D; tapering above £2 million). Claire and Daniel both qualify as lineal descendants for this purpose: Claire in her own right, and Daniel as Susan's step-son — IHTA 1984 s.8K(3) treats a step-child as that person's own child "at that and all subsequent times", which is what the residence nil-rate band's calculation turns on (s.8D, through s.8E's "closely inherited" test). It makes no difference that David died before Susan: the step-relationship stands. So the residence nil-rate band is available against the whole of Susan's home, not just Claire's 60% of it, subject to the ordinary conditions on the estate as a whole.
Signed by the above-named Susan Patricia Marchant as her last will, in our joint presence, and then by us in hers. We were both present at the same time when the testator signed.
Testator's signature and date; Witness 1 and Witness 2 — signature, full name, address, occupation. Witnesses shown as placeholders — a neighbour, a colleague — never a named suggestion.
In red: Claire, Daniel and Anne — and their spouses or civil partners — must not witness (Claire and Daniel inherit; Anne takes nothing, but an executor witnessing invites argument and is avoided). Kieran could in law, because he takes nothing — and should not: asking the one family member deliberately excluded to confirm the will was properly signed invites exactly the suspicion Clause 6 exists to avoid.
Funeral wishes — annotation, never a clause: a woodland burial and a humanist service. None of it belongs in the will: a will is often not read until after the funeral, and funeral wishes in a will are not binding on the executor in any case — the executor has the right and the duty to decide how the body is dealt with (Williams v Williams (1882) 20 Ch D 659: no property in a corpse; an executor is not bound by the deceased's directions), though in practice executors follow clear wishes they know of in time. The fix is the same as for the 60/40 reasons: a separate, dated letter of wishes, given to family and the executors now.
A letter of wishes: a private, dated note kept with the will — reasons for a decision, funeral wishes, where the accounts note is — that binds nobody and needs no witnesses. It never becomes public at probate, and a court may read it when a 1975 Act claim is made. It is not a will and cannot give anything.
This page will still be here.
Leave an email and we'll send you a link back to the three will examples.
Every rule behind every clause on this page, cited to its source. Each is paraphrased here in plain words and linked to the provision itself; the source is the authority, not this page.
| Provision | What it says | Where it bites on this page | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wills Act 1837, section 9 | A will must be in writing and signed by the testator, or by someone at their direction and in their presence. The signature must be made or acknowledged in front of two or more witnesses present at the same time, and each witness must then sign, or acknowledge their signature, in the testator's presence. | Clause 7 of every specimen, and the signing routine: two witnesses, together, then each signs. | read ↗ |
| Wills Act 1837, section 15 | A gift to a person who witnesses the will, or to that witness's husband, wife or civil partner, is void. The will itself stays valid. | Why the names barred on every attestation page — and their spouses or civil partners — must not witness. | read ↗ |
| Wills Act 1837, sections 18 and 18B | Marriage, or forming a civil partnership, revokes a will made before it, unless the will was made in expectation of that particular marriage or partnership. | Why Naomi's residue clause notes that marriage would revoke her will. | read ↗ |
| Wills Act 1837, sections 18A and 18C | On divorce, annulment or dissolution, the former spouse or civil partner is treated as having died on the day the marriage or partnership ended: gifts to them lapse and their appointment as executor falls away. The rest of the will stands. | Why Rachel's "does not cover" list flags separation and divorce. | read ↗ |
| Wills Act 1837, section 20 | A will is revoked only by a later will or codicil, by a written declaration executed in the same way as a will, or by the testator destroying it, or having it destroyed in their presence, with the intention of revoking it. | Clause 2 in every specimen. | read ↗ |
| Wills Act 1837, section 33 | A gift to the testator's child or remoter descendant who dies before the testator, leaving descendants of their own, passes to those descendants unless the will shows a contrary intention. | Why Rachel's and Susan's residue clauses spell out what happens if a named child dies first — and why it does not rescue a gift to a sibling, friend or stepson. | read ↗ |
| Administration of Estates Act 1925, section 46 | Where a person dies without a valid will and has no surviving spouse or civil partner, the estate passes down a fixed statutory ladder: children first, then parents, then siblings, then further relatives, and only then the Crown. | The intestacy contrast in Naomi's "does not cover" list and FAQ 4 — why a will chooses who inherits instead of a fixed ladder. | read ↗ |
| Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, section 1(1) | A limited list of people — a spouse or civil partner, a former spouse who has not remarried, a cohabitant of two years, a child of the deceased, a person treated as a child of the family, and a dependant — may apply to the court for reasonable financial provision from an estate. | Why Susan's will states Kieran's exclusion, and why Daniel's gift is not left to a 1975 Act claim to settle. | read ↗ |
| Ilott v The Blue Cross and others [2017] UKSC 17 | The Supreme Court restored a modest award to an estranged adult daughter against a will that left her nothing, while confirming how much weight a testator's clear and considered wishes carry. | Susan's Clause 6 annotation — the leading case on an adult, estranged child's claim. | read ↗ |
| Trustee Act 1925, section 14(2) | A sole trustee cannot give a valid receipt for the proceeds of land held on trust — at least two trustees, or a trust corporation, are needed. | Why Rachel names two substitute executors jointly, and why Susan's executors are appointed jointly from the outset. | read ↗ |
| Trustee Act 1925, section 31 | Trustees holding a minor's share may apply its income for the child's maintenance, education or benefit before they turn 18, and must pay the income itself to the child from 18 if the capital is not yet vested. | Rachel's Clause 6 annotation, and FAQ 12. | read ↗ |
| Trustee Act 1925, section 32 | Trustees may advance capital early — since 2014, up to the whole of a beneficiary's presumptive share, not merely half as the 1925 Act originally capped it. | Rachel's Clause 6 annotation, alongside section 31. | read ↗ |
| Trustee Act 1925, section 36 | A surviving or continuing trustee may appoint a replacement trustee by deed where an existing trustee dies, wishes to be discharged, or is unfit or unable to act. | Susan's Clause 3 annotation and Rachel's "does not cover" list — the fix if a co-executor drops out mid-administration. | read ↗ |
| Law of Property Act 1925, section 184 | Where it cannot be known which of two people died first, the younger is presumed in law to have survived the elder. | Why every residue clause on this page carries a 28-day survivorship condition. | read ↗ |
| Inheritance Tax Act 1984, section 18 | Transfers between spouses and civil partners are exempt from inheritance tax. Transfers between unmarried partners are not. | Rachel's Clause 6 annotation — why the spouse exemption survives a 28-day survivorship condition. | read ↗ |
| Inheritance Tax Act 1984, section 23 | Gifts to a UK charity by will are exempt from Inheritance Tax outright, whatever the size of the gift. | Every charity legacy on this page — Cancer Research UK, Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity, Marie Curie. | read ↗ |
| Inheritance Tax Act 1984, Schedule 1A | Leaving at least 10% of the estate's "baseline amount" to charity brings the whole taxable estate down to a 36% reduced rate instead of 40%. | Naomi's and Susan's charity-gift annotations — and why their modest fixed sums do not reach that threshold. | read ↗ |
| Inheritance Tax Act 1984, section 8D | A residence nil-rate band of up to £175,000 is available where a home is left to a child, grandchild or other lineal descendant, tapering above a £2 million estate. | Susan's Clause 6 annotation — the home and inheritance tax. | read ↗ |
| Inheritance Tax Act 1984, section 8K | A step-child is treated as that person's own child, at all times, for the residence nil-rate band's "closely inherited" test — including after the natural parent has died. | Why Daniel, as well as Claire, qualifies for the residence nil-rate band against Susan's home. | read ↗ |
| Children Act 1989, section 5 | A parent with parental responsibility may appoint a guardian for a child by will; the appointment takes effect once no parent with parental responsibility is left. A step-parent without parental responsibility cannot appoint one for the other parent's children. | Rachel's Clause 4 — the only clause 4 on this page that is not omitted. | read ↗ |
| Animal Welfare Act 2006, section 3 | A person who owns an animal is always regarded as being responsible for it. | Naomi's and Susan's pet gifts — Marmalade and Bramble. | read ↗ |
| Animal Welfare Act 2006, section 9 | A person responsible for an animal must take reasonable steps to meet its welfare needs — a suitable environment, diet, normal behaviour, appropriate housing, and protection from suffering. | The statutory duty of care that a pet's new owner takes on once the gift takes effect. | read ↗ |
| Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, section 1 | A digital or electronic thing is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it is neither a thing in possession nor a thing in action. | Rachel's digital-accounts annotation — confirms digital assets can be owned as property; creates no right of access for an executor. | read ↗ |
| GOV.UK, Make a will | To be legal, a will must be made by someone 18 or over, made voluntarily, made by a person of sound mind, made in writing, signed in the presence of two witnesses who are over 18, and signed by those two witnesses in the testator's presence. | The checklist every specimen on this page is built to satisfy. | read ↗ |
| Video-witnessed wills | A temporary rule made during the pandemic allowed witnesses to be present by video link for wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2024. It has ended: witnesses must be physically present. | Why "Before you sign" states two witnesses in the same room. | read ↗ |
| GOV.UK, Inheritance Tax rates and allowances | There's normally no Inheritance Tax to pay if the value of the estate is below the £325,000 threshold. | The nil-rate band figure used throughout the charity-gift and residence nil-rate band annotations. | read ↗ |
| GOV.UK, Inheritance Tax residence nil-rate band | The maximum available residence nil-rate band is £175,000, available where a home is left to a child, grandchild or other lineal descendant — including a step-child — tapering above a £2 million estate. | Confirms, in plain guidance, that Daniel qualifies as Susan's step-son alongside the statute at s.8K. | read ↗ |
Sources read on 17 September 2026. Two case citations — Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 and Williams v Williams (1882) 20 Ch D 659 — sit behind a bot-detection gate on the free case-law archive and rest on convergent secondary-source confirmation rather than a directly fetched transcript; both are correctly cited and well-corroborated. The Law Commission's report Modernising Wills Law (May 2025) recommends, among other things, ending the rule that marriage revokes a will and allowing electronic wills. Those are recommendations; none is law yet.
The most common failure across all three households is asking the wrong person to witness.
The union of what all three specimens leave out — where a template is not enough.
Three complete, annotated wills, institutional Valoren aesthetic. Copper-ruled clauses. Every attestation page. The nobody-who-inherits warning in red, named for each household. No account required.
Also free: the blank will template (PDF) — a will to fill in yourself — and the mirror wills template (PDF) — two matched wills for a couple.
What a free specimen cannot do — and what a drafted will adds.
Related reading: the blank will template · the mirror wills template · does marriage revoke a will · how much does a will cost
The blank version of Naomi's will, ready for your own facts
The blank version of Rachel's will, for a couple
The £149 drafted single will, prepared from your own answers
The £229 drafted pair, for a couple
Why Rachel and Thomas's wills matter after the wedding, not before
What a solicitor-drafted will costs against the free templates here