Hello all I am now ploughing through a lot of old documents that a relative (recently deceased) had copied for me. I do wish she were here still as she may have the answer to my question as she was the ultimate owner of the hitherto copyhold land etc in Wingfield that she got freehold after the 1922 I think it was Act abolished copyhold. Anyway the first document I have (and I haven't tackled the transcription of it yet as it is 24" by 26") seems to be of a Mary Cotton coming to the Manor Court of Stradbroke and Stubcroft in 1794 to transfer the property in Wingfield (that stayed in the Feavearyear family intact until recently) to a Thomas Wayth. That seems a normal transaction based on what I see for other subsequent generations. The second document (which I have transcribed) shows this property coming into the Feavearyear family with a Purchase Agreement in 1805 between this Thomas Wayth and Thomas Feavearyear a linen weaver and my 4th G Grandfather. There is no mention of the Manor in this purchase agreement at all and I don't have a document admitting my Thomas to the Manor Court afterwards as is the case for subsequent generations all of whom inherited this property. To be admitted tenant to the Manor these inheritors paid a fine to the Manor Court. So it seems strange that Thomas Wayth could get 500 pounds from Thomas Feavearyear for a property that he was a tenant of. So my question is whether a copyhold tenant could sell his property in this way. It is possible that there was a Manor Court involvement but I am surprised it is missing as my relative was meticulous at keeping the chain of custody of this property and went to the not inconsiderable expense to have these large documents copied and mailed to me in the USA! . As it happens my ancestor was the oldest child but female so hers the oldest male got the property and I think she always felt that was unfair! Sorry this is so long but hopefully someone can throw some light on this. Barbara Turnham Washington DC