Subject: Re: FW: Manor of Llandough - MDR Entries From: Sion Buckler Direction: sent Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:00 UTC Institution: The National Archives Refs: none Archive id: gm-19c9bf7738780100 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr. Gale, Thank you again for your helpful reply and for viewing the original Manorial Documents Committee returns (HMC9/311). I entirely understand that it is difficult to advise further without more specifics, and I am grateful for the steer toward the Penrice and Margam Estate Records and the NLW catalogue. To answer your question directly: the document historically referred to within the family as the *“Williams Title”* (or the equitable interest conveyance that underpinned it) dates to the period *c. 1900–1915*. It arises from an agreement between John Williams (occupier of Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Cedfin) and Daniel Thomas & Son (Bute Estate quarry operators / limestoners). In essence, the Williams family granted permission for quarrying on part of the farm in return for equitable title / permanent security of tenure once quarrying was complete. Daniel Thomas is said to have formalised his side by a land-swap deed with the Bute Estate (copy formerly held in Cardiff Library, now reported missing along with its index card in 1984). This places the key transaction squarely in the early 20th-century Bute estate rationalisation period, immediately before the 1916 agricultural tenancy to John Williams and the 1915 death of Daniel Thomas (after which Bute attempted eviction, only for the equitable interest to be asserted successfully at the time). Family testimony, supported by the 1876 limeworks severance (Glamorgan Archives D153/4-8) and the known industrial quarrying context, points to this narrow window as the origin of the modern title dispute. *Why this matters now* The 1987 Court of Appeal decision (*BP Properties Ltd v Buckler*) turned on the technical effect of 1974 unilateral licence letters addressed to “Mrs Buckler” – a name my grandmother Mary Williams (née Williams) never used in her marriage or death records. By addressing her under this legal fiction, the proceedings bypassed any adjudication of the Williams equitable title that had been recognised as late as 1915. As the principle “fraud unravels all” makes clear, once the foundational misnomer is identified, the entire chain of subsequent possession orders, licences and registration falls to be re-examined. My grandmother and her heirs therefore retain the superior land claim; the 1988 dispossession and demolition of the 800-year-old farmhouse constitute actionable loss for which reparations are now sought. To strengthen the evidential base I have prepared a one-page interactive timeline (hosted at [insert your hosted link here after uploading]) that highlights every event directly relevant to the “Williams Title” period. With your elevated archival access, you will immediately see where to focus searches in the Penrice and Margam or Bute collections (e.g., 1895–1916 leases, conveyances, limeworks/quarrying files, and any Daniel Thomas references). I would be most grateful if you could now guide me to the precise sub-series or box references within those collections that cover Llandough manorial transactions in the 1900–1916 window. Any surviving index cards, rental entries, or correspondence mentioning John Williams / Daniel Thomas in connection with Great House Farm would be transformative. Thank you once more for your time and expertise. I look forward to your further assistance. Kind regards Sion Buckler On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 at 14:44, Philip Gale < [email redacted]> wrote: > Dear Mr Buckler, > > > > I have had an opportunity to view the file of original returns to the > Manorial Documents Committee (Ref. *HMC9/311*) and the single return for > the Manor of Llandough (see the attached image), and it provides less > information than the existing entries on the on-line MDR. The information > on the other manors in the return is equally sparse This may be because > many of the surviving manorial records were not in custody of the National > Library of Wales at the time of the original survey. > > > > The best course of action is to search the archive service catalogues, and > particularly the on-line catalogue of the National Library of Wales. Is it > difficult to advise you further without more information, for example do > you have rough date for the document called ‘Williams’s Title? A > particularly relevant archive collection appears to be the Penrice and > Margam Estate Records, [c. 1147]-[19 cent.] / Penrice and Margam estate. - > National Library of Wales > > as it includes the surviving manorial records for Llandough. > > > > There is useful guidance on the different types of title deeds published > by the University of Nottingham which might be helpful when searching > catalogues and consulting original property records: > > > > Introduction to deeds in depth - The University of Nottingham > > > > > I am sorry not to be able to provide any additional sources for your > continuing research. > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > [image: The National Archives logo] > > *Philip Gale *|* Head of the Collections and Cultural Property Team* > T: 020 3908 X 9193 | W: nationalarchives.gov.uk > > Twitter: @UkNatArchives > The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey [postcode redacted] > > > > > > > > *From:* Sion Buckler <[email redacted]> > *Sent:* 24 February 2026 17:42 > *To:* Philip Gale <[email redacted]> > *Subject:* Re: Manor of Llandough - MDR Entries > > > > *EXTERNAL*: This email originates from outside of The National Archives. > > You are a delight. > > My family thanks you. > > This means a great deal. > > > > Sion > > > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 at 13:50, Philip Gale < > [email redacted]> wrote: > > Dear Mr Buckler, > > > > Thank you for your e-mail and for clarifying the subject of your enquiry. > > > > As you know the Manorial Documents Register (MDR) only gives general > descriptions of the content, extent and location of the manorial records > recorded in the register: LLANDOUGH MANOR | The National Archives > The > manorial records for the Manor of Llandough are held at the National > Library of Wales, Glamorgan Archives and West Glamorgan Archives, and their > catalogues can be accessed on-line : NLW Catalogue > > , Glamorgan Archives Catalogue > and Archive Collections - Swansea > > > > > The Welsh entries in the online MDR were added in the 1990’s were based on > the survey returns to the Manorial Documents Committee received from > institutions and private owners during the 1920’s. These were subsequently > passed to the custody of the Historical Manuscripts Commission in 1959 > which amalgamated with the Public Record Office to form The National > Archives in 2003. I have requested to see the original returns for Manor of > Llandough to see if they can provide any additional information on the > documentation relating to the manor (Ref. *HMC 9/311*: > https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5879336 ) > > > > There are several other manors with a similar name in Glamorgan and a MDR > search using the search term “Llandough” gives the following result: Search > results: Llandough Glamorgan | The National Archives > > Sometimes the administration of different manors were brought together and > this appears to have occurred with the Llandough and St May’s Church > Manors : > https://archives.library.wales/index.php/manors-of-llandough-and-st-mary-church > > > > I will contact you again once I have had an opportunity to look at the > original returns sent to Manorial Documents Committee. I hope this > preliminary information is of assistance. > > > > Yours sincerely > > > > [image: The National Archives logo] > > *Philip Gale *|* Head of the Collections and Cultural Property Team* > T: 020 3908 X 9193 | W: nationalarchives.gov.uk > > Twitter: @UkNatArchives > The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey [postcode redacted] > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sion Buckler <[email redacted]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2026 5:49:54 PM > *To:* Philip Gale <[email redacted]> > *Subject:* Re: Formal Notice for Record: Church View Close, Llandough / > BP vs Buckler 1987 > > > > *EXTERNAL*: This email originates from outside of The National Archives. > > Dear Mr Gale, > > Thank you for your reply of 12 February. I would like to clarify and > narrow my request to ensure there is no misunderstanding regarding the > records I am trying to locate. > > My correspondence is *not* seeking an adjudication of ownership or title > — I fully accept the stated remit boundaries of the Manorial Documents > Register (MDR). Rather, my enquiry concerns the existence of *any > archival reference, index card, catalogue entry, or pointer to a document > historically known as the “Williams Title”*, which was, according to > contemporaneous family testimony, at one point: > > 1. Held in the *local public library* in the first half of the > twentieth century; and > 2. Indexed in some manner (e.g., an index card or catalogue reference) > that persisted even after the original document could not be located. > > My understanding of the MDR — as described on your own website — is that > it exists to provide brief descriptions of manorial records and details of > their locations: > > “An official index of English and Welsh manorial records providing brief > descriptions of documents and details of their locations… It does *not* > include title deeds or conveyances, and is *not* a register of ownership > of manorial lordships or rights.” > https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/manor-search > > > Based on that description, I would be grateful if you could confirm > whether: > > 1. *Any catalogue entries, index cards, reference pointers, or > archival descriptions* relating to the *Manor of Llandough* or the *Williams > family title* exist in the MDR or related archival catalogues. > 2. If so, the *reference identifiers* and information on how these can > be consulted in person or via digitised records. > > To be precise, I am looking for historical references to the *index card > or listing* for the Williams Title — whether held in a library, local > record office, or other institutional archive — rather than a claim for > ownership judgment itself. > > If such a reference does not currently appear in the MDR, I would greatly > appreciate guidance on where any known catalogue cards or entry lists for > manorial documents from *Glamorgan / Llandough* prior to 1950 might now > reside (e.g., regional archives, National Archives holdings, or affiliated > local repository catalogues). > > Anyway I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you > earlier. > > Thank you again and in advance for your assistance. > > Yours sincerely, > > > Sion Buckler > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 at 14:30, Philip Gale < > [email redacted]> wrote: > > Dear Mr Buckler, > > > > Thank you for your e-mail of 10 February whose contents are noted. The > National Archives does not hold any records relating to your enquiry. The > Manorial Documents Register which this department administers is a register > for the location of manorial documents and not of the ownership and descent > of manorial titles: > > > > > https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/finding-records-in-discovery-and-other-databases/manorial-documents-register/ > > > > A similar position holds for The National Archives responsibilities for > public records and concerns about the past management of official records > is a matter for the relevant government department such as HM Land > Registry. > > > > Yours sincerely > > > > > > [image: The National Archives logo] > > *Philip Gale *|* Head of the Collections and Cultural Property Team* > T: 020 3908 X 9193 | W: nationalarchives.gov.uk > > Twitter: @UkNatArchives > The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey [postcode redacted] > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sion Buckler <[email redacted]> > > Sent: 10 February 2026 22:15 > > To: Archives Sector Leadership <[email redacted]> > > Cc: [email redacted]; [email redacted]; > Paul Egan <[email redacted]>; [email redacted]; > [email redacted] > > Subject: Formal Notice for Record: Church View Close, Llandough / BP vs > Buckler 1987 > > > > You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn > why this is important > > > > > > EXTERNAL: This email originates from outside of The National Archives. > > > > FORMAL NOTICE OF RECORD CHALLENGE, ASSERTION OF RIGHT, AND DEMAND FOR > ENGAGEMENT > > > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > > > This Notice is issued for placement on official record and for reliance. > It is not informal correspondence. I urge you not to resort to silence, > deflection, or delay, as doing so following receipt of this notice > constitutes knowing reliance upon, and maintenance of, records alleged to > be materially defective through fraud, concealment, denial of due process, > and systemic erasure. Please report any suspicious activity and > discrepancies identified. > > > > This Notice is issued in pursuit of narrative justice at this stage; > formal judicial remedies are expressly reserved. It serves to document our > family's side of the story before it is completely erased and history > rewritten, ensuring awareness among custodians of land, heritage, heraldry, > archaeology, and public records. > > > > My elder brother, Rhys Buckler, and I are the sons of the late William > Buckler (d. 1991), defendant in the landmark legal case BP Properties Ltd v > Buckler (1987), and the grandchildren of the late Mary Williams, whose > dispossession, marginalisation, and exclusion from judicial determination > remain unresolved matters of record. Mary Williams was repeatedly and > materially falsely addressed/mislabeled in legal and administrative records > as “Mrs Buckler,” a misidentification that was never judicially tested and > which directly affected the handling, scope, and outcome of proceedings. > The Williams/Buckler family held claim to the land title, having acquired > and occupied Great House Farm continuously since 1667, based on family > records, historical evidence, and centuries of resistance to adverse claims. > > > > I place on record that I am the first member of my family able to speak > publicly and formally on these matters. Other close family members remain > too traumatised and intimidated by the historical conduct of these > proceedings—including violent eviction, demolition, and loss of > livelihood—to engage, despite the continuing consequences of dispossession. > That silence must not be misread as consent, acquiescence, or abandonment > of right. There is a material distinction between free silence and silence > produced by fear, trauma, and coercive experience. > > > > The story, as we have pieced it together, reveals a multi-generational > pattern of lawfare and siege: from Norman/English conquests in 1100 > granting lordships over ancient Welsh Christian landscapes, through > monastic (1215–1539) and Crown seizures (1539 onward), to industrial > encroachments (e.g., 1876 Limeworks severance without consent) and modern > corporate possession actions. This culminated in the 1988 demolition of an > 800-year-old farmhouse amid police standoffs, leaving the family homeless > and the site scarred, now buried under Church View Close. Archaeological > vindication came too late—1994 excavations revealed over 1,000 Roman and > medieval burials, confirming family warnings (e.g., the 1870 Roman soldier > discovery under the living room floor, suppressed by authorities)—yet > heritage records celebrate the site while omitting our dispossession. > > > > The following assertions of right are now formally placed on record. They > have never been lawfully adjudicated or extinguished: > > > > 1. Rhys Buckler may be the rightful Manorial Lord of the Manor of > Llandough, by right of primogeniture and continuous hereditary connection > arising from our family’s occupation of Great House Farm from 1667 until > our narrative, legal, and physical dispossession. > > 2. I assert a claim to act as Squire of the Manor of Llandough, as > executive representative and guardian of the Buckler–Williams estate and > matriarchal lineage, with a mandate to pursue correction of record, > restitution, and restorative remedies. > > > > These are assertions of right, not settled declarations, placed on record > pending proper adjudication—which has been historically obstructed through > procedural narrowing, missing documents, and avoidance of full hearings. > > > > In 1974, Mary Williams was twice prevented from presenting her case and > obtaining a judicial determination of superior ownership, despite claims > grounded in long occupation, intent, and possession. The court confined > inquiry to animus possidendi (intention to possess) and excluded animus > domini (intention to own), reclassifying her from putative owner to mere > occupier and foreclosing title adjudication. BP sought possession only, not > ownership rulings—a choice unexplained and significant. Proceedings were > adjourned or quashed without resolution. > > > > This occurred despite evidence of ownership intent, including: > > > > * Centuries-long occupation and resistance (e.g., failed 1938 > auction due to local support; post-1945 rent disputes). > > * Roman-era remains and historical significance (e.g., Guglielmo > Marconi's 1897 residence during radio experiments, with family aid erased > from records). > > * Unformalized deals like the 1895–1905 Daniel Thomas quarrying > permission for promised title, undermined by vanished deeds. > > > > Judicial ownership examination would have engaged archaeological/heritage > protections, incompatible with redevelopment—consequences avoided, raising > credibility concerns. > > > > Serious unresolved anomalies persist, indicating something is still not > right with the record: > > > > * Licence correspondence dated 31 October 1974 surfacing only on 4 > November, potentially interrupting proceedings to prevent hearings. > > * Claims of 1974 benevolent withdrawal under press scrutiny > unsupported by verifiable coverage. > > * Land registration before Mary Williams’s 1983 death without title > determination; disputes possibly lodged/suppressed by Land Registry. > > * Inconsistent treatment of BP entities across proceedings to family > detriment. > > * Procedural barriers preventing effective defense (e.g., > interrupted essential services post-licence; 1960–1987 court rulings > dismissing ancestral title as "notion" without evidence). > > * Knowing bypass of archaeological constraints (e.g., 1978 trenches > ignored; no contemporaneous 1970s/1990s press on discoveries amid > development). > > * Missing key documents (e.g., 1667 conveyance, 1811–1835 Lambert > Williams agreements proving status, 1982–84 library deeds vanishing). > > * Risks of further erasure: Heritage databases celebrate "Llandough > Roman villa cemetery" while omitting our saga; modern residents unaware of > the "battleground" site. > > > > These anomalies suggest systemic theft, from colonial English subjugation > (e.g., 1543–1770 orbit shifts) to corporate siege, during Wales' > cultural/economic transitions. Authority derived through such means is > illegitimate under natural justice, customary Welsh principles, and > moral-legal frameworks. The record's distortion secures advantage, but > passage of time does not validate it. > > > > Preliminary assessment indicates cumulative benefits from redevelopment > (absent title extinguishment) exceed £100 million, forming a basis for > reparations—covering lost land, artifacts, livelihood, and trauma. > > > > I require relevant public servants, custodians, and office-holders > (including Land Registry, heraldry bodies, museums, archaeologists, MPs, > historians, and councillors) to cease delay, engage substantively, > review/correct/annotate records where defective, and prevent further > rewriting of history. Justice delayed is denied, especially with verifiable > evidence available. > > > > This Notice: > > > > * Challenges the record's accuracy, completeness, and legitimacy. > > * Place assertions of title/standing on record pending adjudication. > > * Reserves all rights without prejudice. > > * Puts officials/beneficiaries on notice that silence/reliance may > aggravate responsibility. > > > > For the avoidance of doubt, His Majesty the King was notified yesterday. > > > > This serves as an invitation to engage constructively before reliance > becomes untenable. > > > > Regards, Sion Buckler On behalf of the Buckler–Williams family [address redacted], > Dinas Powys, Vale of Glamorgan, Wales. https://bpvsbuckler.datro.xyz/ < > https://bpvsbuckler.datro.xyz/> > > > > Postscript — Disability and Succession (Material Notice): The > heir-apparent to the asserted Manorial Lordship is Rhys Buckler’s son, a > young man with Down syndrome. Any obstruction, marginalisation, or > differential treatment affecting his inheritance would engage the Equality > Act 2010 and UK international obligations on disability rights. Disability > cannot bar succession or recognition. This is recorded to prevent claims of > ignorance. > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > National Archives Disclaimer This email and any files transmitted with it > are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are > addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this > email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Opinions, > conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do > not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither > given nor endorsed by it. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > National Archives Disclaimer This email and any files transmitted with it > are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are > addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this > email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Opinions, > conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do > not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither > given nor endorsed by it. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > National Archives Disclaimer This email and any files transmitted with it > are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are > addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this > email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Opinions, > conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do > not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither > given nor endorsed by it. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >