Will terminology question

[LadyGAgain]

Hi!
Please can you legal whizz's help.
Received copy of a family will today.
DH is executor.
Scenario, gran died. Had 2 sons. Estate split between the two equally however she outlived the eldest son. Changed her will.
How would you read the attached?
Thanks

Bump

I'd say it's very badly numbered!

Where does it say that the Estate is split between the two sons, is that on the previous page? The way this page opens ("residual") would suggest that the previous page(s) give specific bequests e.g house to be split.

Who is named in the first two paragraphs, is it the eldest son?
Did that eldest son have any biological children?

It's very standard will speak and what it means is that if one of the children die in her lifetime their children inherit their parents share.

It is very unclear. The rest of the will is missing (what are the "trusts above"?). Looks like one of those home made ones where they have to choose what clauses to put in and what to exclude, but instead throw everything in so that all the clauses contradict each other. If that's the case the will is effectively meaningless. The executors should take legal advice.

Agree with Collaborate.

Also, not sure why you've redacted the names of the charities but left the charity numbers. That makes it easy to find out which charities are involved.

Thank you for your responses.
To clarify. Will drawn up by an actual
Solicitor. The trusts above relate to a gift of jewellery to daughter in law and a sum of money to grandson and daughter in law - both grandson and daughter in law are widow/child of eldest son who died. She changed her will 2 days after she died. So he is not named in the will. The first 7.1 relates to her only living son. 7.2 is grandson. The next 7.1 is daughter in law.
We should get advice shouldn't we
And I have no idea why charities were blacked out - nothing outing there!

If it would help I can scan the whole document?

After he died ... sorry typo

It really won't help scanning the whole will. The clauses still conflict. It's shoddy. Don't take advice from the firm who drafted it. Go elsewhere.

Thanks @Collaborate . I will make an appointment.

It's an absolute dog's dinner, I'm a will writer and I can't make head nor tail of it.

The solicitor did a very poor job.

Thanks for your input @mumblechum0 . It makes zero sense to us either but is it just 'old terminology' but essentially means that the first 7.1 inherits it all and 7.2 inherits it all if 7.1 dies before the person whose will it is dies?

Sorry. And then that's legally binding. Person mentioned in the second 7.1 is upset that the person in the first 7.2 isn't equally inheriting 50% of the estate and that it all goes to the person in the first 7.1.
I must stress that I am none of these persons!

No one can answer that question without seeing all of the will. This is why you need to take it to a real life lawyer.

Presumably the fees incurred can be covered by the estate so op doesn't have to worry about affording legal advice?

Yes no issue with getting independent face to face advice and DH (executor) would not take it from the estate. Just want to get advice from a firm that isn't the solicitors who wrote the will!
Thanks everyone.

DH (executor) would not take it from the estate Why would he spend hundreds of pounds to sort out a cock up in a will and not treat it as a bona fide cost of administering the estate?

Because of family politics and potential upset. It's not our way. Thank you for your help to you all who took the time to respond.