1. The older chain in the archive catalogues
These are separate records to be reconciled, not an assertion that one interest passed directly between every named party.
1547 — L 11
The NLW catalogue for L 11 describes a 1,000-year lease dated 20 June 1547 from Sir George Herbert of Swansea to Edmund Vaughan for a farm called Cydwin in Llandough, with named fields.
1739/40 — assignment
The same catalogue describes Edmond Vaughan's assignment to Thomas Mathews of Llandaf on 13 February 1739/40 for £1,066 13s. 4d. It provides a real transaction point in the older lease chain.
1552–1824 (Bute catalogue range; not a Tŷ Mawr date) — D 219
The NLW Bute Estate Records D 219 catalogue identifies leases of “Cydfin Farm or Ty Mawr Farm, (107 a.)”. The individual instruments and field boundaries must still be inspected.
The lease is a leasehold interest, not a freehold deed. The names offer a strong archival path, but the exact identity must be established by comparing field names, acreage, adjoining tenants, plans, roads and watercourses. See GHF-E173, GHF-E178 and GHF-E179.
2. The 1667 family claim
Mary (Nancy) Williams's c.1974 statement says the family had lived and farmed at Great House since 1667, and a 1974 newspaper report attributes to her a claim that the family first acquired Tŷ Mawr around that date. These are identifiable family and press sources for the claim. The affirmative thesis asks what interest was acquired, inherited or recognised—not merely what later estate accounts called the family.
Primary starting points: Mary (Nancy) Williams's statement and the Llandough pre-1877 title study.
3. The Bute acquisition gap
The historical account places Bute's acquisition of Llandough's manorial lordship in 1793 and the Great House farm freehold in the early nineteenth century, with the Llandough and Leckwith manorial courts held at the house. The crucial control point is the instrument that would have put the house into Bute’s estate: none has been produced. A manor's lordship, a farm freehold, a long lease, quarrying rights and the title to an individual field are different interests.
The affirmative reconstruction asks the records to show precisely what Bute acquired, from whom, and on what terms. It does not treat a later estate name as a complete chain for every parcel inside a manorial area. The inquiry is to follow each parcel or interest through the D 219 leases, estate rentals, the 1824 map and the Bute acquisition documents.
4. William Evans Williams, Pwllypant and the 33-acre limeworks
The NLW Pwllypant title papers catalogue includes probate of William Evans Williams's 1870 will, described as leaving his real and personal estate to the Marquis of Bute. The separate D 258 catalogue covers papers concerning his real and personal estates.
The positive research question is whether any property or beneficial interest held by William Evans Williams connects to the 33-acre Llandough Limeworks block, and whether records show Bute renting, administering, acquiring or inheriting those same acres. The will catalogue alone does not identify the limeworks land. The family-reported Clock Tower dispute and newspaper coverage should be linked to exact dates, pages and words before being used to establish Williams's attitude toward Bute.
The Llandough Limeworks page identifies Glamorgan Archives Bute papers D153/4–8 as the retrieval lead for the 33-acre block from 1876 to about 1912. The block's boundaries must be mapped; it should not be assumed to be the same land as Mary's roughly 10-acre house parcel or the roughly 9 acres she says Bute retained.
5. The 1877 division and the 1928 claim
Mary (Nancy) Williams's account says the Bute Estate sold the farmhouse, buildings and about 10 acres to Daniel Thomas in 1877 and retained about 9 acres. She describes a quarrying arrangement under which the freehold would pass to her grandfather when quarrying ceased. The full operative instrument remains untranscribed; the related GHF-E115 plan and source-status page identifies the plan as partial evidence.
The family case is that quarrying ended and the final rent to Alfred Thomas was paid in 1928, bringing the arrangement into effect. That yields two title strands to test: Parcel A, the house/quarrying parcel, and Parcel B, the eastern fields retained by Bute. Compare the 1877 plan, the 6 November counterpart lease, Bute accounts D153/4–8 and X.6(12), the 1916 and 1939 tenancy plans, and the 1938 and 1969 conveyances.
6. The later corporate register
Reported division→1928
Family says Parcel A passed→1938 / 1969
Bute → WGR → BP chain→1982–83
Two registrations→1987
Amalgamation
The title-register history records WA231076 and WA240304 separately in 1982–83, followed by their amalgamation on 2 February 1987 while the appeal was pending. The affirmative “synthetic estate” question is whether the company register picture joined the Bute/WGR field chain to a separately registered house title without resolving the older Cydwin/Cydfin and Williams/Thomas provenance. The proper test is the operative deeds, registration files and plans read side by side.
Related pages: The Bute Estate, The 1877 Agreement, GHF-E121 — 1938 Bute–WGR conveyance, and the pre-1877 manorial evidence page.
7. Forensic recovery schedule
| Control point | Target records | Required result |
|---|---|---|
| 1547 / 1739–40 lease chain | NLW L 11; individual D 219 deeds | Exact field names, parties, consideration and transfers after Mathews |
| Vaughan to Bute | Estate deeds, rentals and the 1824 survey/map | Identify the actual instrument for the farm freehold, separately from the manorial lordship |
| Williams/Pwllypant estate | NLW D242/17, D258, probate papers | Establish which real-property parcels and beneficial interests passed under the will |
| 33-acre limeworks | Glamorgan Archives D153/4–8; Bute X.6(12); quarry plans | Map the acres; identify owner, lessor, rent recipient and quarry rights |
| 1877–1928 condition | Full Bute–Thomas instrument, plan, counterpart lease, final rent receipt | Transcribe operative terms and link the reverter/transfer to a defined parcel |
| 1938–1987 company titles | 1938 and 1969 deeds; WA231076 / WA240304 files; registration/merger documents | Compare each instrument's land description and plan before treating the merger as a complete title chain |
| Clock Tower dispute | Contemporary newspapers; exact date/page and cited words | Record the actual claim in context, then cross-reference to will/probate correspondence |
Conclusion
The affirmative case is that the older Cydwin/Cydfin/Tŷ Mawr holding and the Williams family's reported connection from 1667 must be brought into the same documentary reconstruction as the 1877 quarry arrangement and the later WGR/BP register chain. The question is not settled by a farm name, a long lease, a will or a registration entry in isolation. It will be settled as far as the surviving records allow by reconstructing the parties, interests, parcels, plans and transfers in sequence.
Source-status rule: archival catalogue description, original instrument inspected, family statement, press report, inference and unresolved point must remain visibly distinct. The case advances as documents are recovered.