Help with Griffith Valuation please

monaghanmissus

As part of an assignment I'm conducting a study of landscape and societal change in my local area. I've researched the Griffith Valuation and am having trouble understanding it.

I understand from the image attached below that Henry Mitchell is the landlord of the estate. One occupant leases land from Henry Mitchell, but two occupants lease the land from William Forster. Is it correct to say he's another landowner?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

(image source: www.askaboutireland.ie)

Maudi

hi .has anybody have any info on the noel lemass memorial thats in the hills there above the glennasmole res...im familiar with the sad story.but specifially im interested who the "few friends"were and whos care the monument is in?
(mod.i cant seem to post this in 'new thread'so feel free to move as you see fit)

thenewmanIII

The tenat is Henry Mitchell, it is in fee (I need to find out what this means again myself), the description of tenement is House, offices & land, the aera is A. R. P.
which means (Acres, Root and Perch) so he has 65 acres (A.), 1 root (R.) and 17 perches (p.). The next heading you will see is Land and Buildings under Rateable Annual Valuation. For land the cost is in £.s.d. (Pounds, shillings and decimal pence) so the land is £72. and 10 shillings no d. pence. so it becomes £72.10.0 and then for buildings it cost Henry Mitchell £25.0.0 (or just simply £25) and his total annual rateable property comes to a total of £98.10.0.

Just follow the same proceudure all the way through the griffith's

I hope this helps.

thenewmanIII

the numbers on the very left of the Griffith's is the location of the land on the map but you have them cutt off from the screen.

DeepSleeper

monaghanmissus wrote: »

As part of an assignment I'm conducting a study of landscape and societal change in my local area. I've researched the Griffith Valuation and am having trouble understanding it.

I understand from the image attached below that Henry Mitchell is the landlord of the estate. One occupant leases land from Henry Mitchell, but two occupants lease the land from William Forster. Is it correct to say he's another landowner?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

(image source: www.askaboutireland.ie)

Don't forget that the first column is the 'occupier' and the second column is the 'immediate lessor' - this means that while William Forster leases property to J Jameson and S All, there is nothing to say that Forster does not, in turn, rent these same properties from Henry Mitchell... Griffith's only shows one link in the chain (the occupier-immediate lessor link) and doesn't show any other detail - there could be one or more 'higher links' at work here...

monaghanmissus

Thank you very much for your help, that has really cleared things up!

Jo King

monaghanmissus wrote: »

As part of an assignment I'm conducting a study of landscape and societal change in my local area. I've researched the Griffith Valuation and am having trouble understanding it.

I understand from the image attached below that Henry Mitchell is the landlord of the estate. One occupant leases land from Henry Mitchell, but two occupants lease the land from William Forster. Is it correct to say he's another landowner?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

(image source: www.askaboutireland.ie)

Held in Fee means held in Fee Simple. Fee Simple means the land is held directly from the crown forever and is the nearest there is to full ownership.
Henry Mitchell owns a parcel of land an occupies it himself without any tenant on it.
The others in the column below Henry Mitchel rent their land from the person on the right. There is no way of knowing who holds the fee simple of those lands. There can sometimes be numerous layers between fee simple holder and occupier.

clashburke

Jo King wrote: »

Held in Fee means held in Fee Simple. Fee Simple means the land is held directly from the crown forever and is the nearest there is to full ownership.
Henry Mitchell owns a parcel of land an occupies it himself without any tenant on it.
The others in the column below Henry Mitchel rent their land from the person on the right. There is no way of knowing who holds the fee simple of those lands. There can sometimes be numerous layers between fee simple holder and occupier.

Was there not also fee farm grants and other such methods of land ownership at the time?

Kosseegan

clashburke wrote: »

Was there not also fee farm grants and other such methods of land ownership at the time?

There still are fee farm grants but there is always a fee simple. The holder of the fee farm grant does so from some who holds another fee farm grant or a fee simple. In Rathfarnham in Dublin for example there are houses with 4 layers of fee farm grant up to a fee simple holder. This often arose when estates wre subdivided.