To make an extremely long story short. I desired to thoroughly destroy my will. So I went to my lawyer and communicated this. He responded by handing me my will and I think he might have communicated that if I wanted to destroy it then I could take it and shred it or whatever. But because I wasn’t clear on the details of what he said I went back after burning my will to ash to just make sure that there wasn’t anything else that I needed to do. So I said “OK I have now burnt it to a crisp. So is that all I need to do to invalidate my will?” Then my lawyer said “No it’s not invalidated.” He seemed to be saying that I had destroyed it but I hadn’t invalidated it. Trying to figure out if I had misused the word I looked up “Invalidate” in the dictionary and it seemed to describe exactly what I meant. I wanted to remove the document itself and any legal power it holds from all known reality except from the past of course because that would involve time travel. Anyway being told that it wasn’t invalidated while also being told that I did destroy the will has made me confused about its status. I’m sure some people are probably thinking that well obviously if you’ve destroyed all the paperwork then it doesn’t matter what word is used because the paperwork doesn’t physically exist anymore. However this doesn’t apply too strongly in the modern day because apparently there are actually records on digital file, which apparently my lawyer is obligated to keep for give or take seven years. Looking up invalidate in a legal context with Google, I noticed a pattern. It only seemed to be used in regards to removing the legal power of someone else's will but never the will of the person who it actually belongs to. Is that how I misused it? Or is there something I've overlooked regarding destroying the will?