GHF-E122 — 2 February 1949 surrender and re-grant of Frederick Buckler’s tenancy (no written record)

Evidence preview

Preview not embedded. As at 10-10-2026, no inline image or document preview was identified in the evidence section of this page. Use the custodian/source link below to inspect the item.

1. The evidence

Evidence object area: there is no written agreement to display. This page exists so that the absence is itself a catalogued fact. ^🕒

Catalogue UID: GHF-E122 · Custodian/source copy: bucklerfamily.estate. Preview and provenance status as at 10-10-2026.

Description

3. What is not known

2. What is known

Catalogue: GHF-E122 · Type: Unwritten yearly agricultural tenancy; landlord rent records · Date of document: 2 February 1949 · Holder: none known; WGR rental books and plan book at Glamorgan Archives (D696, c.1938–44) are background only · Evidence status: NO DOCUMENT absence recorded ^🕒

DOCUMENTED FACT (as later recited). Frederick Buckler held an unwritten yearly agricultural tenancy from 2 February 1949 (Frederick Buckler). It concerned Parcel B. FAMILY EVIDENCE: Mary refused a tenancy of the farmhouse at the same time and asserted ownership; the family regards this as the first attempt to make her occupation permissive, and says it failed.

• Who instructed the surrender and re-grant, and what land the parties understood it to cover.
• Whether any WGR or Bute record of Mary’s refusal exists.
• Whether the 1916 description was reused for a tenancy that had no plan.

Transcription

Interpretation and wider context

FAMILY EVIDENCE / UNRESOLVED. It predates the 1950–52 report that the title deed was missing (E123). ^🕒

ReOrg · D696 lead

Interpretive assessment date: 10-10-2026.

High-level Cedwyn Estate theory cross-reference: This entry is relevant to the Cedwyn Estate timing hypothesis because it distinguishes Frederick’s accepted unwritten agricultural tenancy from the family-reported claim that Mary rejected an offer and asserted ownership around 1949. The original offer/reply has not been located, so the Mary-specific proposition remains unconfirmed. If recovered, the document must identify the land it concerns before being called more evidence of a link to the 1961 deed.