|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Parish Registers (Read 8174 times)
|
Peter Hyde
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 86
|
Hi All:
On December 7th, 2005 the Berkshire County Archivist, Peter Durrant, wrote the following to FreeREG:
My discussions with various parties have very recently been concluded and I was on the point of writing to let you know the outcome, which is a decision that we intend to proceed in partnership with the Berkshire Family History Society in promoting access to records here. I shall therefore not be granting other permissions for the transcription of registers, nor shall I be authorising release of GSU (Genealogical Society of Utah) films for this purpose.
Yours sincerely
Peter Durrant
(You can see the thread of this at: http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=57528#poststop
)
So Mr. Durrant and his Office are paying lip-service to their mandate "to preserve records relating to the county of Berkshire and its people, and to make them available for research to anyone who is interested in the county's past." Yet they are not fulfilling their mandate, as it is almost impossible for me to access the records of my parish of interest. He says he is "promoting access to records" - a blatant piece of misinformation.
It seems we have an unholy alliance between the Berkshire Record Office and the Berkshire Family History Society to withhold access to parish registers by the general public for as long as possible. What arrogance. Why is Mr.
Durrant allowing a small group of individuals to dictate who may access these records, where they may access them and how they may access them?
In 6 months transcribers of Norfolk parish registers have provided the public, through FreeREG, with transcriptions of 151 parishes. In Berkshire, the FHS has transcribed and made available (for a price) a total of 22 parishes and this has taken several years.
What will the Berkshire RO or the Berkshire FHS do if I transcribe a film that I borrow through the Latter Day Saints and post the transcription on my personal website? What is the difference between me doing that and FreeREG doing it, other than organisation and the scale of the project? It has already happened in a number of counties that individuals' websites have become centres for parish register searches.
It seems that Berkshire Record Office and Berkshire FHS are joining forces with King Canute and the Luddites in their reaction to this.
Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Norfolk (Depwade District)- Nudds, Betts, Bush, Websdale
Berkshire (Thatcham) - Hyde/Hide, Pocock
Cambridgeshire - Wayman, Amory, Preece
Suffolk - Nudds, Steward, Greenleaf
Essex (Colchester) Greenleaf
|
|
|
|
|
behindthefrogs
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 4249
EDLIN
|
Hi All:
In 6 months transcribers of Norfolk parish registers have provided the public, through FreeREG, with transcriptions of 151 parishes. In Berkshire, the FHS has transcribed and made available (for a price) a total of 22 parishes and this has taken several years.
What will the Berkshire RO or the Berkshire FHS do if I transcribe a film that I borrow through the Latter Day Saints and post the transcription on my personal website? What is the difference between me doing that and FreeREG doing it, other than organisation and the scale of the project? It has already happened in a number of counties that individuals' websites have become centres for parish register searches.
It seems that Berkshire Record Office and Berkshire FHS are joining forces with King Canute and the Luddites in their reaction to this.
Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada
Peter needs to be aware of a number of facts.
Firstly the rate at which family history societies transcribe records depends on the number of volunteers available to transcribe the records. If you want the Berkshire records transcribed then volunteer to help. You don't have to live locally to get involved in all the transcriptions that they are doing.
Berkshire is to a large extent a London commuter zone and that has three effects. Lack of time for people to volunteer. The elderly who have time move away when they retire to places like Norfolk. The costs of running the FHS society are much higher than many other areas in terms of running the search rooms and booking halls for meetings. Are you suggesting that it should not subsidize these costs for the members who do the transcription by recovering the costs plus a small profit from the transcriptions?
In short if you don't like it: join the FHS, help with the transcriptions and have your vote as to how they are distributed.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Living in Berkshire. From Northampton & Milton Keynes DETAILS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMES ARE IN SURNAME INTERESTS, LINK AT FOOT OF PAGE Wilson, Higgs, Buswell, PARCELL, Matthews, TAMKIN, Seckington, Pates, Coupland, Webb, Arthur, MAYNARD, Caves, Norman, Winch, Culverhouse, Drakeley. Johnson, Routledge, SHIRT, SAICH, Mills, SAUNDERS, EDLIN, Perry, Vickers, Pakeman, Griffiths, Marston, Turner, Child, Sheen, Gray, Woolhouse Census Info is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
|
|
behindthefrogs
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 4249
EDLIN
|
Hi David,
It seems I've got the wrong end... It came across as they were not letting anyone else transcribe the registers. Thus, only way to see info was to pay FHS's.
Lesanne.
You are half right. The issue as I understand it. and I am not directly involved, was the release of the registers and copies there of on film held at the record office for the purpose of transcription. In most cases there is only a single copy. This came down to two problems.
They either had to be withdrawn from general public access while the transcription took place or special copies made. The possibilty of interrupting transcriptions for public access was not considered feasible. It was also considered that these options would involve breaking the record office's terms of reference quoted above.
The solution was for the records to be made available to the FHS out of normal office hours to allow photocopies to be made and in difficult cases for making and checking the transcriptions. Berks FHS has the advantage that its search room is on the same site as the record office. All expenses to be carried by the FHS which recovers its costs by the sale of transcription copies. A copy of the transcriptions would be made available for use in the record office. They are also available in the FHS search room free to members and for the small day visit fee payed by visitors.
To duplicate these arrangements for other transcribers not located locally was considered too difficult if not impossible.
The above is hearsay but I believe essentially correct.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Living in Berkshire. From Northampton & Milton Keynes DETAILS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMES ARE IN SURNAME INTERESTS, LINK AT FOOT OF PAGE Wilson, Higgs, Buswell, PARCELL, Matthews, TAMKIN, Seckington, Pates, Coupland, Webb, Arthur, MAYNARD, Caves, Norman, Winch, Culverhouse, Drakeley. Johnson, Routledge, SHIRT, SAICH, Mills, SAUNDERS, EDLIN, Perry, Vickers, Pakeman, Griffiths, Marston, Turner, Child, Sheen, Gray, Woolhouse Census Info is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
behindthefrogs
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 4249
EDLIN
|
If FreeReg want to transcribe they can go to the BRO or any LDS Family History Centre and get on with it.
I am not sure that this statement is entirely correct. As I stated previously I know that there is a problem with making material available for long periods for transcription and thus it not being available for general public use.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Living in Berkshire. From Northampton & Milton Keynes DETAILS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMES ARE IN SURNAME INTERESTS, LINK AT FOOT OF PAGE Wilson, Higgs, Buswell, PARCELL, Matthews, TAMKIN, Seckington, Pates, Coupland, Webb, Arthur, MAYNARD, Caves, Norman, Winch, Culverhouse, Drakeley. Johnson, Routledge, SHIRT, SAICH, Mills, SAUNDERS, EDLIN, Perry, Vickers, Pakeman, Griffiths, Marston, Turner, Child, Sheen, Gray, Woolhouse Census Info is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
newburychap
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 753
|
If FreeReg want to transcribe they can go to the BRO or any LDS Family History Centre and get on with it.
I am not sure that this statement is entirely correct. As I stated previously I know that there is a problem with making material available for long periods for transcription and thus it not being available for general public use. David
I have never heard of any restriction on the use of films (unless an FHC is particularly busy and you can only book a film reader for a limited time). Even in the BRO the principal access to PRs is via film or fiche - originals can only be seen if a) the film is illegible and b) the register is not deemed too fragile to produce.
So the only restrictions are on access to the original registers - which FreeReg aren't that interested in - it is copies of the films they are after.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Currently researching: Newbury pubs & inns - the buildings, breweries and publican families. Member of Newbury District Field Club - www.ndfc.org.uk |
|
|
Peter Hyde
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 86
|
"If FreeReg want to transcribe they can go to the BRO or any LDS Family History Centre and get on with it."
Not true.
a. I can't go to the BRO - it is 5,000 km away.
b. My nearest LDS centre is 80 km away, and only open in the evenings one day a week.
Yet, I can transcribe the LDS images for Norfolk parishes at home, from a CD. That's what I want from Berkshire. The images are provided by LDS - no cost to Berkshire RO.
The result - So far I have transcribed 6 Norfolk parishes and Norfolk now has over 300,000 parish register entries on FreeREG with 75 trancribers, Berkshire has none.
Suggestions that it is the Oxford bishop who is telling the Record Office not to give the LDS persmission to release LDS images are unsupported by any documentation that I have seen. So until someone can produce evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that it is Dr. Durrant's decision.
I agree it may be a grey area and Dr. Durrant is acting on the side of caution in the absence of a specific ruling by the bishop or the synod. But his caution is holding back those of us with Berkshire acestors. Yet his mandate, taken from the BRO website, is "to preserve records relating to the county of Berkshire and its people, and to make them available for research to anyone who is interested in the county's past
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Norfolk (Depwade District)- Nudds, Betts, Bush, Websdale
Berkshire (Thatcham) - Hyde/Hide, Pocock
Cambridgeshire - Wayman, Amory, Preece
Suffolk - Nudds, Steward, Greenleaf
Essex (Colchester) Greenleaf
|
|
|
newburychap
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 753
|
"If FreeReg want to transcribe they can go to the BRO or any LDS Family History Centre and get on with it."
Not true.
a. I can't go to the BRO - it is 5,000 km away.
b. My nearest LDS centre is 80 km away, and only open in the evenings one day a week.
1. You are not all of FreeReg - if some transcribers cannot get to a film others can.
2. Why not pressurise your local LDS to open their FHC more - or to allow you access for one convenient day a week so you can transcribe. If the LDS are so keen on FreeReg why can they not let you do this?
Yet, I can transcribe the LDS images for Norfolk parishes at home, from a CD. That's what I want from Berkshire. The images are provided by LDS - no cost to Berkshire RO.
What Dr Durrant almost certainly does not want is images of Berkshire parish registers on CD (he has also refused Berks FHS permission to work this way) - once digitised the copyright will be almost impossible to enforce. The potential cost of loss of control of copyright could be immense.
And no Bishop needs to tell Dr Durrant what to do - it is his job as a church archivist (part of the responsibility of most if not all county archivists) to make these sort of decisions. If you asked the Bishop he would probably call his local expert (Dr Durrant) for advice. He may also go to his other archivists in Oxfordshire (LDS have not even been allowed to film PRs - nothing on FreeReg) and Buckinghamshire (not sure what is happening there but only 3 or 4 parishes in FreeReg) to get alternative opinions - I doubt they would differ with Dr Durrant.
Norfolk actually appears to be an exception rather than the rule - almost a fifth of all entries in FreeReg come from there. From a quick look through the FreeReg site it seems to me from the sparcity of entries in most counties that most archivists have made the same decision as Dr Durrant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Currently researching: Newbury pubs & inns - the buildings, breweries and publican families. Member of Newbury District Field Club - www.ndfc.org.uk |
|
|
Vicwinann
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 658
|
Hello,
Can I make some comments on this subject - or have we gone on long enough about it?
1. No Archivist in the UK has the power on his own to make such wide ranging decisions. These decisions/policies are made above him, but with his and his staff's advice and input.
2. As the owner of the copyright would appear to be the Berks Record Office under the control of Local Government, then Local Government Officers and Councillors are the people/body, and NOT the Church of England, who made/make the decisons as to the how and if copyright is shared. Again with the archivist's input. We are not just talking about Church of England records here! Other church records are equally unavailable unless one can visit Berkshire Record Office.
3. The pressures on Dr Durrant as mentioned can only be put upon him by his Local Government colleagues, who in turn are advised and dictated to by National Government. Passing the buck and lack of accountability using financial, copyright, legal, and privacy grounds as reasons has become a way of life with many Local Councils and Councillors, and this is just another example.
4. Which brings us back to another comment made, with which I agree, sheer greed. Berkshire RO and the Council do not want to lose the revenue from the exorbitant charges it makes for searches from people unable to visit the record office. I was quoted £650 last year for an outcome of 15 peices of paper!
Regards
Vicwinann
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sellwood Berkshire Oxon Lancs Wilts; Cassell Berkshire and Guildford; Leighs Guildford and London; Saunders Portsea, Greenwich and Deptford ; Austin Cookham; Osgood Berkshire; Dack Norfolk; Darling Berkshire and Mapledurham; Wilkins Englefield Berks; Havenhand Derbys; Whileman Derbys; Reedman Derbys, Notts, Australia, Africa; Rottenberry Deptford and Devon;
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Hyde
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 86
|
Thank you joboy and Vicwinann for continuing this thread. I am nothing if not persistant, and yes, I too am looking for the real truth.
newburychap has made a number of points which need to be addressed:
"The potential cost of loss of control of copyright could be immense" - what cost? - loss of revenue from sales of film copies? - no - Berkshire RO doesn't sell copies. Loss of revenue from doing searches? Norfolk RO doesn't seem to be going broke.
I suspect it is the loss of control which bothers them more. Yet, LDS were allowed to film the registers, transcribe some of them, and put the results on the net.
"...other archivists in Oxfordshire (LDS have not even been allowed to film PRs.." then how did LDS IGI get 129 Oxford parishes at least partly transcribed?
"Norfolk actually appears to be an exception rather than the rule " Yes - and Norfolk was the exception in having it's 1851 census transcribed by LDS and put on CD, years before most other counties.
And, talking of censuses - several years ago this site and others were swamped with lookup requests. Since the National Archives made their films available a huge surge in genealogy interest has occured. Not just a coincidence I think.
And I still go back to one of my original points that by restricting access the Record Office is going against its mandate to "make them available for research to anyone who is interested in the county's past." I am interested, and they are not making the records available to me in a reasonable manner, in a way that is technologically possible, and no expense to tax-payers. Allowing LDS to digitise and release the images would go along way to achieving that part of the mandate.
I wonder if an access-to-information claim by someoe in a remote part of the UK, or by a house-bound individual in Berkshire, would be effective?
What is being asked for is really no more than is already being given to the priviledged/lucky ones who live within easy travelling of the Record Office or a LDS reading room.
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Norfolk (Depwade District)- Nudds, Betts, Bush, Websdale
Berkshire (Thatcham) - Hyde/Hide, Pocock
Cambridgeshire - Wayman, Amory, Preece
Suffolk - Nudds, Steward, Greenleaf
Essex (Colchester) Greenleaf
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
|
|
|
|
|
