EV-0051 — “Grievous loss”: letter from William Rees opposing demolition of Great House Farm

page · Updated 2026-10-24T07:50:30 · Original source

EV IDEV-0051
Title“Grievous loss”: letter from William Rees opposing demolition of Great House Farm
Date of document19 November 197? (year unclear: 1974 or 1977)
Typepress
Evidence labelPRESS REPORT
Repository / referenceWestern Mail (publication). Cutting held as family scrapbook item, Buckler family evidence repository. Catalogue GHF-E090-N04.
StatusPUBLISHED — open the scan (image)
ProvenanceCutting pasted on family scrapbook page beside Daily Telegraph open-day report (GHF-E090-N03); Transcript legible apart from last digit of year.
Wiki catalogue pageGHF-E090-N04
Claims that rely on thisMedia Gallery, Press Archive — Newspaper Transcripts, Press Articles Index — every newspaper cutting and press extract, one page each, The Restoration Campaign, GHF-E090-N03 — 16 April 1974: “‘Open day’ to save ancient Welsh house” (Daily Te
EV-0051 — “Grievous loss”: letter from William Rees opposing demolition of Great House Farm

Quotation: the farmstead of Great House, or Ty Mawr, which still embodies some of its earlier features, serving as the manorhouse of Llandough.

Proves: A letter signed “William Rees, Penarth” published in the Western Mail opposes demolition of Great House Farm and calls it “the manorhouse of Llandough”.

Does not prove: Not a title record; Each step of the manorial chain needs separate primary sources. Says nothing of family tenure or the 1877 arrangement. Writer’s identity and exact year (1974 or 1977) unconfirmed.

File stored in the wayback archive: EV-0051 in the artifact index.

Interpretation: working hypotheses

Working hypotheses, kept apart from the record above. The record text on this page is unchanged. None of these is a finding: each line is labelled as inference, theory, a reading that cuts against the case, or a discarded theory, and names the evidence it rests on and what would confirm or refute it, so the reader can test it. Updated 25 Oct 2026 (v2: ingredients wording).

The 1974 licence letters

THEORY · L-02Ground R2: the decisive finding was that she never repudiated the letters ("she did not, however, do that"). The family's account, as read here, is that she rejected the permission offered. A letter from her or her solicitors to BP after 31 Oct 1974 rejecting the licence would meet the exact point the court said might have changed the result.

Rests on: EV-0050 · EV-0049 · EV-0051 (this page) · EV-0080 · EV-0073 · ground R2

Would be confirmed by: Such a letter in the family solicitors' 1984–87 file, BP's list of documents, or a reply to the Western Mail letter of 19 Nov 1974.

Would be refuted by: A complete solicitors' file with no rejection. The 1974 defence alone does not help: the court recited it and still found no repudiation (E130).

Status: Open (ground R2, scores a1 b5 c1 d1)

Demolition, archaeology and the green

DISCARDED THEORY · H-05DISCARDED: the theory that the "1978 article" was an ownership assertion made after the licence letters. Reason: it is the Daily Telegraph of 16 Apr 1974, before the letters; the companion letter is the Western Mail of 19 Nov 1974.

Rests on: EV-0048 · EV-0051 (this page) · research log E04

Would be confirmed by: Would be revived by a dated 1978 item.

Would be refuted by: Refuted by the handwritten date and archive stamp.

Status: Discarded

Cited on

14 pages link here.

Browse mirror index

Small print: dotted links explain a word (see the glossary); amber-shaded links list every name the records use for the same thing.