RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Berkshire => Topic started by: Peter Hyde on Sunday 25 February 07 20:38 GMT (UK)
-
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
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
-
Have read this thread with interest Peter.
It would seem that our poor old 'Ag lab' Barkshire families are still being used as the 'dogs bodies' to make money for them in the big 'ouse.
Greed comes to mind.......... :(
Lesanne.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Will they be free, once all the expensive transcriptions have taken place?
oooh, that didn't sound right but you know what I mean.. :-\
-
This thread has generated some wonderful explanations but started with a false statement and has drifted off into wonderful speculation.
The situation is that the Berkshire Record Office in the person of the County Archivist, Dr Peter Durrant, has refused FreeReg permission to use (notably to digitise) LDS films for its purposes. Other archivists have decided differently, some have been selling PRs on fiche for years others have sanctioned LDS to release films to FreeReg.
In making his decision Dr Durrant (and other archivists who made the same decision) have earned the wrath of some wishing to see the PR data online for free.
The implication is that Berks FHS have in some way prevented the BRO from allowing FreeReg access - this is nonsense. Berks FHS may have some influence over Dr Durrant - as anyone representing a large group of BRO users would. However, anyone who has met the man will realise that he will not be swayed from a course of action that he believes to be in the best interests of the owners of the PRs (of whom he is the representative).
I am fairly sure that his issue is not with the desire of FreeReg to transcribe registers but with the possibilty that they would copy (especially digitise) PR films in order to give volunteers images to transcribe at home. As the representative of the copyright holder of the parish registers (he is also the Archivist for the Archdeaconry of Berkshire records) he believes that the uncontrolled release of digitised images is not in the best interests of the copyright owners. He is consistent in this and has also refused Berks FHS permission to digitise films for transcription purposes.
It is likely that there are other pressures on Dr Durrant that would help him decide they way he has (for instance he is likely to have targets set by his bosses for the number of visitors to the BRO each year - having all the PRs on line would reduce numbers). However, I don't think such pressures would have that much effect on him, in my opinion the key to this issue is control of copyright.
If FreeReg want to transcribe they can go to the BRO or any LDS Family History Centre and get on with it.
If anyone wants to see Dr Durrant change his mind then they need to get the owners of the PRs to tell him to act differently. It is about time that the Church Of England made a national decision about their parish records and took this decision away from local archivists. They should come out and say whether the PRs should be made available for free distribution (at no cost to the Church or ROs - the LDS have certainly considered putting all their films online for free) or they should make the PRs available for commercial exploitation by the likes of Ancestry or more likely by licencing them to all comers as the National Archives do with census films.
-
Does this help with searching for Berkshire records...
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers/CountyBerkshire.htm#PageTitle
-
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
-
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.
-
"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
-
"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.
-
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
-
Vicwinann said;
Hello,
Can I make some comments on this subject - or have we gone on long enough about it?
No Vicwinann we have not 'gone on' anywhere long enough the subject needs desparately to be ventilated and I thank both yourself and particularly Peter for his persistence.
Joe
-
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
-
I too would like to have access to these records and I live further away than Peter Hyde. Well said, Peter.
How can we persuade Dr Durrant to allow these records to be available to all who would like to see them. They certainly are not now.
Despite the protestations there must be a way to do this.
The excuses sound like something from "Yes Minister." The programme that pointed out that silly decisions are often all about a desire for power, and greed.
Has anyone written letters to the local newspaper?
What about groups of angry genealogists waving placards outside the office? ;D
What about a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury? maybe he has an interest in genealogy.
-
:o My word, you have all been busy.. Hmmmm...
How would we go about making an e-petition?
Just like the one that was used for the 'extra car tax' a few weeks ago...
Then, those in the big 'ouse would get to see and perhaps understand our disgust at their power and greed.
-
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.
Every County Archivist has the power to make the decision Dr Durrant has made - and the decision the Norfolk archivist has made.
There are those 'above' him who could override him or influence him to change his mind - the Church of England authorities.
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.
When we are talking about Church of England parish records the owner of the copyright and of the original registers is the parish that the registers came from - in the person of the incumbent. Parish registers are deposited in record offices to ensure they are kept in the best possible condtions (and to save individiual parishes the expense of providing suitable storage). They are not the property of the BRO or any part of local government. The County Archivist is employed by local government (in Dr Durrant's case a complicated structure involving 5 or 6 unitary authorities). However, he is also the archivist for the Archdeaconry of Berkshire (inlcudng parts of Oxfordshire) - his local government bosses will have little power over this decision.
Once filmed there is another party to the copyright of the filmed image - I don't know what agreement was reached between the LDS and BRO when the LDS filming was done but LDS are obviously prepared to leave the decisions to the BRO.
Records from other churches and organisations have variable ownership - it depends on the terms under which they were placed in the BRO (ignoring Berks records in other hands). When someone decides to put somthing in the BRO they have the option of keeping ownership (depositing) or passing ownership to the BRO (donating). PRs are all deposited - other records vary. The person putting the record in the BRO can also set conditions which can include a closure (not to be seen by the public). I would hope that such closure can only be for a limited period but I am not sure that is the case. The BRO will also make decision as to closure periods to be applied to sensitive records. They have recently received the records of Broadmoor Hospital - the suggestion is that the patient records will never be made public (anyone want to challenge that with a FOI application?). I have also come across a case where the donor stipulated that his papers should not be copied - I could see them but could not get a photocopy or take a picture of them.
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.
As explained above - it is the Church who have the decision to make, not local government.
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!
BRO charges are often OTT. One aspect is that they often quote to bring in a professional photographer to take beautiful pictures (very expensive) when all you want is a quick snap with a digital camera.
As to the revenue from the PRs - the potential revenue I had in mind would go to the owners (the Church of England) if they agreed to licence their PRs to Ancestry or some other pay to view provider (like the National Archives have done with the censuses).
The piecemeal and varied decisions of County Archivists illustrate to me the need for the C of E to make a policy decision and to stop leaving it in the hands of the Archivists.
-
:o My word, you have all been busy.. Hmmmm...
How would we go about making an e-petition?
Just like the one that was used for the 'extra car tax' a few weeks ago...
Then, those in the big 'ouse would get to see and perhaps understand our disgust at their power and greed.
Not a bad idea - though most e-petitions get a lot less support than the road pricing one.
National government could include a clause on access to historical parish registers in their proposals for changes in civil registration (whenever they get round to re-submitting them). Beware though - the previous proposals included the transfer of most Register Office records to the county record offices.
-
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.
As stated elsewhere - the loss of revenue from PRs licensed to pay per view internet providers could be very significant. The Church of England is strapped for cash these days - their PRs could fund a few vicars.
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.
Family history has become big business since the LDS did their filming and extractions - I doubt they would be allowed to do it again under today's conditions.
"...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?
I would guess that some of the IGI records come from BTs deposited in Lincoln before the Oxford Diocese was created. They could also have used printed sources (I know they have included the Oxfordshire Marriage Index that Jeremy Gibson produced).
There are no (or very few) films of Oxfordshire registers (pre 1974 Oxfordshire) - when you go the the Oxfordshire Record Office you have to work from transcripts (they are almost all transcribed) and originals as there are no films to use.
"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.
Whilst true this has little relevance to this issue - the Norfolk 1851 census film was supplied by the Public Record Office - not by the local RO. Norfolk 1891 data was also the first to be made available as it was used by Qinetiq for the testing of the 1901 census website (not that it helped much).
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 occurred. Not just a coincidence I think.
I wouldn't disagree - believe it or not I too would love to see Berkshire PR data online for free. However, I can see why Dr Durrant has made the decision he has made - to the extent that I suspect I would make the same decision if I were in his place.
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.
You are correct in that Dr Durrant's decision is counter to this aspect of the BRO's mandate. However, he has an overriding mandate to protect the interests of the owners of documents in his care. Digitisation of the PR films is obviously something Dr Durrant believes is not in the best interests of the owners.
I wonder if an access-to-information claim by someone in a remote part of the UK, or by a house-bound individual in Berkshire, would be effective?
The term is Freedom of Information (FOI). An FOI claim has to be for a specific piece of information and the BRO is entitled to levy a reasonable charge for the cost of satisfying the request. They would argue that the research service they already offer constitutes a satisfactory level of access under the terms of the FOI Act. I would guess that the only argument would be over the cost as some of the BRO charges seem less than reasonable.
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.
You're wrong - although the lucky ones who live close enough to visit the BRO or an FHC may see the filmed registers there - they cannot have digitised copies of entire registers to view on their home computers (much though they might like them).
-
Hello Newburychap and everyone,
RE
Every County Archivist has the power to make the decision Dr Durrant has made - and the decision the Norfolk archivist has made.
I can assure you that they do not. As an retired Local Government employee from another Authority I know that every such decision has to be discussed at all sorts of levels before it becomes Policy. The BRO does not run in isolation from other departments.
RE
When we are talking about Church of England parish records the owner of the copyright and of the original registers is the parish that the registers came from - in the person of the incumbent. Parish registers are deposited in record offices to ensure they are kept in the best possible condtions (and to save individiual parishes the expense of providing suitable storage). They are not the property of the BRO or any part of local government. The County Archivist is employed by local government (in Dr Durrant's case a complicated structure involving 5 or 6 unitary authorities). However, he is also the archivist for the Archdeaconry of Berkshire (inlcudng parts of Oxfordshire) - his local government bosses will have little power over this decision.
Sounds like Dr Durrant has far too much power and a definite conflict of interests. Not only is he "in charge" of the BRO, he also advises the CofE, and from what you are saying, it is with this hat on that he is advising the CofE which trickles down to the Unitary Authority to make the decision that we are so irate about.
RE
BRO charges are often OTT. One aspect is that they often quote to bring in a professional photographer to take beautiful pictures (very expensive) when all you want is a quick snap with a digital camera.
Not only quote, but insist that this is the only way, and one has to also pay for someone of the RO Staff to be present, as well as for the photographer's time and the cost of the prints.
The muddying of the waters regarding transcriptions and there only being one copy etc. is just that, muddying. Hampshire and several other Local Authorities that I have had personal dealings with, offer fiche copies of original parish records for sale, not transcriptions. Not cheap at £3.50 a fiche if you want a lot, but at least they are available to buy for your own use. If other Local Authorities can do it, why can't Berkshire?
Back to Dr Durrant again! I have no wish to make any individual a whipping boy, but it would seem from all the discussions that the key lies with him.
Regards
Vicwinann
-
One thing to remember about the BRO is that there is no longer a Berkshire County Council and it is in fact funded by the Unitary Authorities which constitute what used to be the county. I thus suspect that Dr Durrant reports to a committee which might change the situation.
David
-
My thanks to newburychap and others for filling in the details of this issue. I understand that some of my remarks may have been somewhat inflamatory - but it seemed to take some extreme statements to get this discussion happening, so if I have upset anyone, at least my heart was in the right place.
I think we all share a common desire to have better access to parish records, and whilst we may disagree on how decisions have been arrived at and degrees of responsibility of the various parties, the goal of better access remains forefront. As I think I said in my first posting, all I want to do is transcribe the Thatcham and Chieveley registers, from digitised copies, in my home. Who I then make my transcriptions available to is really of little interest as long as I know that others will be able to share them, and will share what they have done with me.
With that said, I would like to move on to the next step - a discussion of who needs to be influenced and how.
Various agencies have been suggested for pressuring - the Anglican Church (both as a corporate body, at the Diosese level and presumably as individual incumbants), the Record Office in the person of the Chief Archivist and his political overseers, the LDS in Utah, etc.
While a long term solution may be to influence the Anglican Church, I will probably be long since buried before that happens. However I wonder how the LDS would deal with a request to them from an incumbant to provide a digitised copy of that parish's register.
We seem to be agreed that Dr. Durrant could make the decision to allow the LDS to make the LDS films available, and presumably he could also make the decision that the record office will themselves sell copies of the fiche. There seems to be some suggestion that he is quite conservative in his approach to this. I am still awaiting his reply to an e-mail I sent him last week on this topic. (ARCH@reading.gov.uk)
Until/unless we know the wording of the agreement whereby the LDS did their original filming in the 1950-1990 period, we don't know how susceptable to pressure they might be, but clearly the agreement did allow for some kind of distribution of the films and all I am looking for is an extension of that distribution from the LDS reading room 80 km away from here, to my house. Maybe I should offer one room here in my house to the LDS to be used by them as a designated reading room!
There is clearly no blanket prohibition on transcribing records, and then making those transcriptions available. It is just being made difficult.
I think my next step will be an e-mail to the LDS asking to see their agreement with the Church and/or record office, to see if any loopholes exist there.
Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada
-
Hi All
I have recieved a rapid, if incomplete, response from the LDS regarding digitising of parish records, which may have an influence on the discussion:
"Dear Peter Hyde,
Yes, we are digitizing most of our films, but we do not have a specific knowledge of which , if any, parish registers are being digitized at this time. When they are finally digitized, we plan to have them online and accessible from our website for free viewing by our patrons. This may not happen for a few years since we are still in the process of digitizing our over 2 million film collection.
Sincerely,
Family History Research Support
familyhistory@support.familysearch.org
FCH/vla"
No answer to my question to them regarding the nature of their agreement with the Church or the Record Offices. I will follow-up with them.
Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada
-
Peter, that's great you got a partial answer. It could have been a form letter answer. I got one of those from them on a different subject. It did not quite answer my question either, maybe 25% of it. When I wrote back I got an unhelpful and defensive answer. I saw there was no point in going any further. I hope you are more successful. :)
-
Every County Archivist has the power to make the decision Dr Durrant has made - and the decision the Norfolk archivist has made.
I can assure you that they do not. As an retired Local Government employee from another Authority I know that every such decision has to be discussed at all sorts of levels before it becomes Policy. The BRO does not run in isolation from other departments.
Dr Durrant's situation is rare - he is employed by Reading UA (who employ all the BRO staff) but the funding comes from the 5 UAs that signed up to the BRO system (Reading, West Berkshire, Bracknell Forest, Wokingham, Windsor & Maidenhead).
So the political will is represented by 5 different councillors or committees - none of which will have much interest in old records (apart from wanting to see their own mistakes buried for as long as possible and their opponents exposed asap).
And none of them have any significant input into the fate of records not owned by the UAs (which include records owned by the BRO). There may be ROs where the County Archivist is subservient to corporate policy on this sort of issue - but I suspect they are very rare.
When we are talking about Church of England parish records the owner of the copyright and of the original registers is the parish that the registers came from - in the person of the incumbent. Parish registers are deposited in record offices to ensure they are kept in the best possible condtions (and to save individiual parishes the expense of providing suitable storage). They are not the property of the BRO or any part of local government. The County Archivist is employed by local government (in Dr Durrant's case a complicated structure involving 5 or 6 unitary authorities). However, he is also the archivist for the Archdeaconry of Berkshire (inlcudng parts of Oxfordshire) - his local government bosses will have little power over this decision.
Sounds like Dr Durrant has far too much power and a definite conflict of interests. Not only is he "in charge" of the BRO, he also advises the CofE, and from what you are saying, it is with this hat on that he is advising the CofE which trickles down to the Unitary Authority to make the decision that we are so irate about.
Of course he would advise the Bishop of Oxford - he is one of the Bishop's archivists - who else would he ask for advice?
What I am saying is that I suspect (I have no inside knowledge on this) is that Dr Durrant made this decision without reference to anyone else (apart from colleagues in the BRO perhaps). I also suspect that he did so because it is within his delegated powers to do so. In fact I suspect that if he follows the book he has little choice but to make the decision he has made without consulting all the individual owners of the PRs.
The muddying of the waters regarding transcriptions and there only being one copy etc. is just that, muddying. Hampshire and several other Local Authorities that I have had personal dealings with, offer fiche copies of original parish records for sale, not transcriptions. Not cheap at £3.50 a fiche if you want a lot, but at least they are available to buy for your own use. If other Local Authorities can do it, why can't Berkshire?
The answer is simple - because they choose not to. The motivation is less obvious - I have heard it said that the cost of doing it makes it not worthwhile (obviously other ROs think otherwise). A lot depends on how they would manufacture the fiche. Where the PR is alread on fiche it is simple to take a copy, where they are on 35mm film (as many/most of the BRO's are) there would be a significant set up cost. Then fiche is not a popular medium these days so sales would be low (especially at £3.50 or more a fiche). There is also staff time to factor in.
In reality it would be much easier to digitise them on demand and sell them on CD - or put them on a pay per view website.
However, all this ignores the copyright issue - Dr Durrant is not the copyright owner so he could be used for breach of copyright by any PR owner (obviously other archivists don't feel this is a threat - so they probably have the Church's agreement).
I still think that the interests of historians would be best served by a national level decision to take the ownership of the copyright (not necessarily the original books) from the incumbent and into central CofE or Crown ownership. Exploitation of the images could then take place under a common set of rules for all counties.
Back to Dr Durrant again! I have no wish to make any individual a whipping boy, but it would seem from all the discussions that the key lies with him.
He is not alone - I suspect most County Archivists have made the same decision - and that those selling PRs on fiche or allowing FreeReg to use digitised images from LDS are in the minority.
-
Newburychap, I agree with you as will, I am sure, most of the people reading this thread:
...the interests of historians would be best served by a national level decision to take the ownership of the copyright (not necessarily the original books) from the incumbent and into central CofE or Crown ownership. Exploitation of the images could then take place under a common set of rules for all counties.
I also think that Peter is right when he says, While a long term solution may be to influence the Anglican Church, I will probably be long since buried before that happens.
The CofE is very indecisive, it seems to me, on other matters, so how long will it take for them to take ownership of the copyright. The answer must be
Crown ownership.
We need a champion for this cause.
-
Thinking about ownership - when a public company is required to maintain records by an Act of Parliament, those records are public records and the LLC is required to publish its accounts and make them freely available to share-holders in a manner proscribed by government regulations.
So when an organisation like the Church is required by Act of Parliament to maintain records, could it not be argued that those records are public records and must be made freely available to church members in a manner proscribed by government regulations, and not just in a manner seen fit by the local archivist?
I am prepared to swallow my agnostic beliefs and dig out my baptism record to prove membership!
Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada
-
Hi All:
Here is the reply from Dr. Durrant, the Chief Archivist for Berkshire, regarding my last letter to him asking for parish register films to be more accessible.
"PD/DR/G
19 March 2007
Dear Mr Hyde
Thank you for your email of 14 March. I have taken note of the points you raise.
In view of the level of interest in this issue I propose to bring it before my governing board at its next meeting in June.
Yours sincerely
DR PETER DURRANT
County Archivist
Berkshire Record Office"
Can someone tell me who the Governing Board consists of - preferably names, e-mail addresses, job-titles. And also, whether these board meetings are open to the public, and whether they accept submissions at those meetings from the public. You see where I am going with this.........
Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada (minus 17 C, snowing)
-
Hi Peter,
Should ask Dr Durrant, as only he knows which meeting he will be attending. ;)
Lesanne.
-
Hi Peter, well done! :)
I hope the people of the governing board, as well as Dr Durrant, realize they had better do something positive regarding public access to these records as this issue will not go away.
-
Has there been any update on this issue?
-
Did anybody start a petition on this matter?
Joanne
-
Hello Joanne,
No, not that I know or heard of. I really don't think anything has been done to help with online references from the Oxford/Berkshire area.
Lesanne.
-
This is what Dr. Durrant, Chief Archivist for Berkshire wrote to me following their June meeting. It seems to say that the status-quo of inaccessibiltiy via the Internet will be maintained.
"18 June 2007
Dear Mr Hyde
Thank you for your messages to Archives Board members concerning publication of parish register transcripts. Board members have asked me to reply to you on their behalf.
Board members considered a way forward for granting permissions for publication of such scripts. Board concluded that they wished to see Berkshire Record Office develop licences to permit publication. We are now tasked with developing an agreement for such licences. Board have asked that the agreement includes terms relating to intellectual property rights in transcripts or indexes, rights for re-use, quality control processes for creating and checking transcripts or indexes, a commitment to a royalty based on use or sales of them, and a time period for which licences would last. These agreements will be required of any organisation or individual seeking to publish transcript or index information from any items which we hold.
While we set about this we have also recommenced a dialogue with the Diocese of Oxford. I have to say that the initial Diocesan view is not to permit any publication of transcripts or indexes online. We will, however, continue our discussion with them in the hope that we can reach an agreement that satisfies owners, custodians and users alike.
The situation regarding publication of transcripts by freereg is therefore unchanged from our correspondence earlier this year. I appreciate that this will be disappointing. I would like to assure you that we are still happy to offer you, or anyone else unable to visit, access to parish registers through our paid research service.
Yours sincerely
PETER DURRANT
County Archivist"
Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada
-
:D Thanks for your great reply Peter. Again, very informative.
Looks to me that they will be part of the Archive themselves before anyone get to see it online. ::)
Lesanne.
-
And so the situation has got worse rather than better.
If the diocese continues with this view (as they are entitled to) online resources from Berks, Bucks and Oxon FHSs will be removed. They may even get the LDS to remove data from the IGI (less likely I admit).
My point in this thread has been that the Church of England needs to make a decision on this issue - not to leave it to each diocese or incumbent to make the decision. I am even more convinced of this now.
-
Thinking about ownership - when a public company is required to maintain records by an Act of Parliament, those records are public records and the LLC is required to publish its accounts and make them freely available to share-holders in a manner proscribed by government regulations.
So when an organisation like the Church is required by Act of Parliament to maintain records, could it not be argued that those records are public records and must be made freely available to church members in a manner proscribed by government regulations, and not just in a manner seen fit by the local archivist?
I am prepared to swallow my agnostic beliefs and dig out my baptism record to prove membership!
Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada
This is a very important point - not put strongly enough.
The older registers were required by law for the whole of the population of England - later, concessions were made to some groups.
There should be no need to demonstrate membership to prove right-of-access.
Any copyright that still exists is on the films or transcripts - copyright on the original documents surely expired long ago for those of greatest interest (I seem to recall a fifty year limit used to apply to copyright, or does that only apply to items in print as opposed to manuscript publications).
Is the Bishops transcript of these records stored in the same place?
-
We need a good lawyer methinks...
Joanne
-
Have just read a thread on the closure of Churches due to lack of funds for their upkeep and can't help thinking that the solution to both problems lies in their assets ....namely ..Parish Registers and "Heritage". maybe the revenue should go to the Church, maybe it's time to re-invent themselves, as all other businesses and going concerns have to, and .. maybe rootschatters should be the campaigners for this, after all we know just how much this service is desired and we are all sad to see yet another Church, and Graveyard bulldozed to make way for, carparks, flats, office buildings and the like.
I am not a Religious person but view the Churches and the roles they played in our ancestors lives as something worth preserving.
Any takers for mounting some sort of campaign?
Joanne
-
:-\ and there's the answer, for why they get away with it... no takers,
we all working our butt's off.. 24 / 7 .. never to 'visit' the office.
-
There should be no need to demonstrate membership to prove right-of-access.
There isn't any such requirement - PRs deposited in record offices are freely available to all who bother to come subject only to the need to preserve the state of the books - so most will be available via film/fiche in the first place with the real thing only being brought out when the copy is illegible. There is no clause in any so called 'right of access' that says that the documents have to be made available on the internet - record offices have reading rooms principally to provide for the legal requirement to make their records available to the public.
Any copyright that still exists is on the films or transcripts - copyright on the original documents surely expired long ago for those of greatest interest (I seem to recall a fifty year limit used to apply to copyright, or does that only apply to items in print as opposed to manuscript publications).
Copyright is a complicated beast but the view of many archivists is that the originals are copyright until 2039 or thereabouts - this is not an unreasonable interpretation of the copyright act of 1989 (UK) which gave all unpublished material 50 years protection from the date of the act. I doubt this interpretation has been tested in law.
Is the Bishops transcript of these records stored in the same place?
No.
BTs are held by the diocesean archives - the case of Berkshire this means Oxfordshire Record Office (since 1836ish) and Wiltshire and Swindon RO (pre1836). The ORO are under the same constraints as Berks RO when it comes to publication of diocesan records . In any case there is less claim that BTs are public records than PRs (which where initiated by a governmental edict).
-
Hi Newburychap,
Thanks for the detailed clarification. Sorry, I hadn't seen it earlier but didn't get any notification of your response.
-
:D Newburychap, that's naughty. 'all who bother to come' ... I'm sure you didn't mean it.... Those across the pond and t'other side of the world would like half a chance, let alone have the bother. :D
Lesanne.
-
:D Newburychap, that's naughty. 'all who bother to come' ... I'm sure you didn't mean it.... Those across the pond and t'other side of the world would like half a chance, let alone have the bother. :D
Lesanne.
I may have been a bit harsh - but you need to understand that making records available via RO search rooms is all that is required of the archivists. Many have spent considerable amounts improving and equipping such searchrooms to better meet the need of the increasing numbers of family historians who visited in large numbers. Recently, however, visitor numbers are dropping dramatically as sources such as GRO indexes and censuses have gone online. Ironically these were sources that ROs bought in mainly to encourage usage of their facilities - now they are barely touched. Many archivists are worried about their own funding - for instance Dorset RO has recently been instructed to get rid of something like 25% of its staff, no doubt the unitary authorities funding them decided that reduced visitor numbers meant that less staff would be needed (heaven forbid that they might actually catch up on the backlog of cataloging or do some indexing).
But none of this matters in regard the current issue - the BRO does not own the PRs and the owner has the final say and currently they say no.
-
Just been to the BRO ....mutter :( no photo's ....gripe :-\ £2 per frame.... >:(
and on my own camera... mutter :-X
-
Quote but you need to understand that making records available via RO search rooms is all that is required of the archivists. Unquote
So they do the absolute statutory minimun to gain what they perceive as the maximum. Revenue, that is.
Some of us don't necessarily want online records, but we are asking why the BRO is not even prepared to allow other people - ie local history society volunteers, to transcribe, or for it to sell copies of transcribed/untranscribed fiche/cds as do other RO's. I have bought copies of Parish Record fiche/booklets/cds from a number of RO's. If they can do it why can't Berkshire? And why do they charge such exorbitant prices for simple documents? That is, in comparison with many other RO's.
Passing the buck backwards and forwards from the Church of England to the RO to the Local Authorities, is just that:- passing the buck. We are not just talking about Church of England Parish Records, but other non conformist churches as well.
Petitions are a waste of time, effort, and money. They just fill up someone's waste paper bin.
One of the reasons why visits to RO's has dropped is not to do with online or published records being available. That is just an excuse to justify saving money by reducing staff and closing places down. The perception is that ROs are unimportant and emptying dustbins is, when the money is shared out. The drop in RO visitor numbers is more to do with the cost of travel, the cost of parking, the cost of photocopies, the cost of taking your own photos, and a number of other things.
Please, Newburychap, stop trying to defend the indefensible. Someone, somewhere, simply does not want Berkshire PRs to be available anywhere but in the RO, at a price. "No" is the answer, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. That is called power.
Regards
Vicwinann
-
What has been missed in this thread is that neither the Diocesan Archivist or the Bishop hold the copyright of parish registers held in the archives.
The copyright holder is the present incumbent of the particular parish (each parish or group of parishes has a different copyright holder).
Write to the organ grinder not the monkey.
Cheers
Guy
-
I would dearly love to get my hands on the PRs of several Berks parishes but, as I don't live anywhere near, it's not going to happen any time soon. I would be willing to buy transcripts and I would also be willing to help with transcriptions (especially for the parishes I'm interested in!! :-[).
I'm still not clear what the problem is in Berkshire.
However, I would like to defend the BRO staff. They always offer a fantastic service even if research prices are a bit steep. Recently, they looked up a whole list of my names in their wills index for free and found several, copies of which were then available for a very reasonable rate.
Going back to VicWinann's point, I must not been looking in the right places because I've never come across an RO which actually sells PR transcripts - FHSs yes, ROs no.
Jill
-
Going back to VicWinann's point, I must not been looking in the right places because I've never come across an RO which actually sells PR transcripts - FHSs yes, ROs no.
Hampshire does as does Norfolk Pricy but available
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/archives/copies-hals.htm
http://archives.norfolk.gov.uk/nroprsum.htm
Vicwinann
-
Please, Newburychap, stop trying to defend the indefensible. Someone, somewhere, simply does not want Berkshire PRs to be available anywhere but in the RO, at a price. "No" is the answer, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. That is called power.
My main interest in 'defending the indefensible' has been to attempt to refute the various misunderstandings and untruths that arise from the conspiracy theories - particularly the ridiculous notion that Berks FHS are somehow responsible for the BRO attitude.
Dr Durrant's letter to Peter Hyde (already published in this thread - I hope Dr D doesn't sue for breach of copyright:)) shows that his customer/boss at the diocese is the first hurdle to overcome - Dr D can do nothing without diocesan approval, he is one of three County Archivists acting as deputy/assistant diocesan archivists, in effect working for the man who has made the decision not to have the PRs digitised. Simply put, he cannot give the permission FreeReg are seeking without diocesan approval.
Guy may be right about ownership - but how many incumbents are going to go against the diocesan policy? Perhaps someone could persuade an incumbent to give permission to scan/publish their PRs, but you won't get them all to go for it.
Another suggestion is that only Berks FHS are allowed to transcribe the PRs and other registers - check out the transcripts available from Oxfordshire FHS and the Eureka Partnership.
And then there is the BRO - who do nothing beyond the minimum - have you seen their Berkshire Enclosure website?
There is also the suggestion that the PRs are only available in the BRO - true for a few - but most Berks PRs have been filmed by the LDS and are available in Family History Centres worldwide, many indexed on the IGI (presumably before the diocese realised what was happening, you won't find many Oxfordshire PRs).
However, I am not going to atempt to defend the £2 a photo charge for taking pictues in the BRO :( Personally I will drive past Reading to go to Kew if they both have a copy of a source - TNA does not charge for use of a camera.
-
Berkshire Record Office
I live in Spain, I am a pensioner and am on a limited budget.
I was going to put this request on the Common Room board because shortly I will be in Berkshire on my yearly visit to see my family. Maybe here is the best place as everyone seems to know the place well.
As I have never had the opportunity to visit any record office before I would like some personal tips on finding my way around and what is generally involved.
But I am horrified to see that they charge two pounds to use your own camera! and I would not have known this if I had not come across this thread.
This means that if I am successful in finding all the things I want to I could also have a large bill at the end of the day.
There was an earlier point about some Berks records being on the IGI. There are some I agree but there are an awful lot that are not. Especially the ones I need!
So, if anyone can come up with the easiest way for me to make a successful visit I would be extremely grateful.
Regards,
Abiam
-
:D Hi Abiam,
The staff at BRO were very helpful.
E mail the office as you will have to book the table for any larger doc's. They only have the one table.
The BDM index's are all available, but when you see the "actual" register, it's £2 a go on your camera, as said before. You might ask how much a photocopy would be.
If you want to look at older doc's, bring a pair of cotton gloves.
The National Archives "A2A" seemed to have the same index number as in the BRO. I took a few bits of info with me, description and ref numbers from the NA. This did help me find them when I got there.
Write a list of people, their bdm's, place/parish they lived. If you're trying to find someone who ISN'T where they should be..... take a map of the parishes of Berkshire :-\ so you can look in the adjoining parishes..... :-\
The record office is open till 9pm on a Thursday.
The family history office is open till late on a Tuesday.
How useless is that........ They are next door to each other !!!!
You will need photo ID and addy. Pencils, eraser, paper. Other notes.
I came away very dissapointed.... but Oxford RO totally different story... Brilliant.
Good luck, Lesanne.
PS They have Hot drink machine and toilet facilities.
-
Hello Abiam,
You will find the Berks RO site has a page which gives some guidance for first time visitors http://www.berkshirerecordoffice.org.uk/services/visit.htm
I have sent you a private mail about your Dobsons and Tuckwells. I have both as twigs on my tree and may be able to help.
Regards
Vicwinann
-
:D Hi Abiam,
The National Archives "A2A" seemed to have the same index number as in the BRO. I took a few bits of info with me, description and ref numbers from the NA. This did help me find them when I got there.
The record office is open till 9pm on a Thursday.
The family history office is open till late on a Tuesday.
How useless is that........ They are next door to each other !!!!
Good luck, Lesanne.
Two points.
A2A is an index to the contents of record offices and so you would expect the references to be the same.
The fact that BFHS and the RO have different late evenings was I believe a deliberate decision which was necessary to enable transcription work to take place on the evening the record office is open.
David
-
Hi everyone,
Lesanne good to hear from you and thank you. What I shall mostly be looking for will be confirmation of BMD's and hunting down the elusive earlier ones. I tried to follow your scavenger but got totally lost - hope you got there in the end!
David thanks for your input. There is only one land enclosure I would like to find out about. Is there likely to be any more information than the pages I found in the Land Enclosures site?
Vicwinann, thanks will have a look at their website and will reply to you with a pm.
I have started my list and am sure I have too much for one day!
But who knows.....................
Thank you all again,
Abiam
-
E mail the office as you will have to book the table for any larger doc's. They only have the one table.
Only one huge map table (room for several to use it simultaneously) - but a dozen or so places for reading original documents.
The BDM index's are all available, but when you see the "actual" register, it's £2 a go on your camera, as said before. You might ask how much a photocopy would be.
Photocopies and prints from fiche/film are 40 or 50p - much better value that using your own camera.
If you want to look at older doc's, bring a pair of cotton gloves.
Cotton gloves for handling old documents are provided by the BRO
The National Archives "A2A" seemed to have the same index number as in the BRO. I took a few bits of info with me, description and ref numbers from the NA. This did help me find them when I got there.
The A2A index contains entries from many archives (but not the National Archives). Part of the BRO index is there and it is well worth preparing for a visit by checking A2A to see if there is anything of interest. If not then don't give up hope, there is lots that has not yet got to A2A.
The record office is open till 9pm on a Thursday.
The family history office is open till late on a Tuesday.
How useless is that........ They are next door to each other !!!!
Berks FHS gave up opening Thursday evenings because virtually no one turned up.
I came away very dissapointed.... but Oxford RO totally different story... Brilliant.
Berks RO have good facilities and premises - but Oxfordshire is, I agree, a better experience (more indexes and free use of your camera contributing hugely to this).
-
Shame, I didn't get gloves to examine a 400 year old document. :-\
Hmmm. I didn't think all the ref numbers were the same. Check them out Abiam, take copious notes with you.
Newburychap, do you work there? :)
Regards,
Lesanne.
-
Shame, I didn't get gloves to examine a 400 year old document. :-\
It depends on a) what the document is written on and b) if the assistant thinks to tell you to wear gloves - they are available for anyone to help themselves to. One size fits all - my hands are big so I find myself attempting to manipulate old vellum or parchment with cotton webbed fingers - not ideal.
Hmmm. I didn't think all the ref numbers were the same. Check them out Abiam, take copious notes with you.
When searching A2A select the BRO as the repository and you will get BRO references only, if you search all repositories you will get a mix of BRO and other references.
You can use A2A while you are there if you forget to take the copious notes.
Newburychap, do you work there? :)
Fraid not - but I have been a few times...
-
One size fits all - my hands are big so I find myself attempting to manipulate old vellum or parchment with cotton webbed fingers - not ideal.
That is why it is best to take your own gloves they can be bought in various sizes (adult small, medium, large + child small, medium large) but archives tend to buy one size.
Cheers
Guy
-
:o Awful thought.
What happens when your pic's are put on 'puta, back at home and they are'nt there, for whatever reason.
??? Do BRO refund my money ???
Then, what are they actually charging for ??? Your time, your tools, your action.
-
What happens when your pic's are put on 'puta, back at home and they are'nt there, for whatever reason.
Personally I check the photo in camera before I pay for it - may even download it onto a laptop while I'm in the BRO.
I am sure they will say that the picture taking is at your risk - I guess they are charging you for access to the document(s) and almost certainly won't guarantee the quality of the results.
-
Hi Newbury chap,
The access is to documents is for free?
Would we buy anything at our own risk from anywhere ;)
Obtaining an image is finalised when you 'see' the result image. If it's blurred or 'not there' for what ever reason, the purchase has not happened/taken place.
I would like to know how the customer rights on purchases work here.
Are BRO pulling a fast one?
-
Hi Newbury chap,
The access is to documents is for free?
Would we buy anything at our own risk from anywhere ;)
Obtaining an image is finalised when you 'see' the result image. If it's blurred or 'not there' for what ever reason, the purchase has not happened/taken place.
I would like to know how the customer rights on purchases work here.
Are BRO pulling a fast one?
Don't get me wrong - I would far rather not pay the £2. However, other ROs charge for camera use (Bucks for one) so I would hope they have thougt the legal issues through. At a guess I would surmise that they would argue that they are charging to allow you to do something beyond the norm.
You obviously view it as a charge for the picture - they would view it as a charge to allow you to take the photograph. Charging gives them the opportunity to a) get you to sign a copyright commitment and b) to check that the document is okay to copy (some owners do not allow copying). Of course they could get you to fill in the form and not charge - but they could also argue that the staff time taken in sorting out the form is what they are charging for.
Why don't you drop them an email and ask the basis for the charge? It would be interesting the see their response to your points.
-
"What Dr. Durant almost certainly does not want is images of Berkshire parish registers on CD - once digitised the copyright will be almost impossible to enforce."
Ancestry.com, Scotlandspeople have this "problem."Oh do I pity them. The poor folks at these sites are bleeding money so badly - that I've chosen to voluntarily forgo that cup of coffee every day to send them some assistance. Its such a problem that new companies want to get a slice of the "loss leader pie."
Crazy world we live in huh?
Dr. Durant's statement is one I'd expect to hear from an officials in Botswana. It is a cruel act of self subordination - undermining their own ability to make money from the registers.
Sure - they might see a reduction of income per person from a handful of customers, but they loose thousands of customers that would pay handful of money each, but a lot more in total.
But the real delight is that we don't need to pay tribute to these dignified dimwits. Most of these books have been published already in some form or the other and are landing up on Internet sites everywhere free of charge.
The pirates treasure parish chest train has left the building. Such a shame.
-
Just found this thread. Very interesting!
Going back to Jill Russ's post # 48. Both Beds & Luton Archives & Records Service (BLARS) and Beds FHS sell the microfiche transcripts of all Beds parishes (which go from the start of the PR to 1812). In addition BLARS sells the same transcripts in book form
David
-
:D Hello Folks,
Just showing this thread and thought I'd ask if there has been any update yet... :D
Lesanne.
-
:D Hello Folks,
Just showing this thread and thought I'd ask if there has been any update yet... :D
Lesanne.
Hi Lesanne,
The decision by Berks RO et al still stands.
Additionally, I understand that the Federation of Family History Societies, when it recently transferred its online records to findmypast, was unable to transfer all of them because of this issue. This is the reason why some Berkshire records are no longer on line.
Vicwinann
-
It's good to see a thread that is examining these issues.
It seems to me that every county has its own different situation
I used to enjoy those records previously on the FFHS website, which will presumably not see the light of day again.
It does the that the County Archivist is making decisions that are not in the interest of many of his best 'customers'
It would be good if he were more open to outside views, and consulted before making decisions such as some other archives have done
Bob
-
On a positive note - Berks FHS have now launched a Marriage Database which you can request (paid) searches of. Coverage is patchy so best to check first if the parishes and dates you're interested in are included.
Still nothing on the baptism front.
I'm constantly frustrated by the lack of Berkshire information which is available to those of us who live nowhere near their Archives. I don't realistically expect them to launch parish registers onto the internet, free for all to view. However, I do think that this particular Archivist (and he's probably not alone) should join us in the 21st century. What's wrong with publishing your PRs on CD/DVD like Oxfordshire do - you're not telling me that they don't garner one heck of a revenue from them.
Instead, us 'foreigners' (I come from Yorkshire!) are supposed to be mollified by being told that we can pay for research through the Archives. I was recently quoted £20 for a look up for baptisms for one surname in one parish over a less than 20 year period - the parish is not a particularly large one. I've done look ups at my own RO so I know of what I speak(!) and it would probably have taken me less than 15 minutes.
Fortunately a fellow Rootschatter who lives down there did the look up for me.
If it's not against the Rootschat Code of Ethics etc, why don't we try to fix up a Rootschat Look Up Committee consisting of people who will do free look ups in particular counties - always within reason, of course i.e. no blanket searches or vague 'could be's'.
Would it be possible? As I say, I do it already in my county and I know a few others who do the same in theirs. Or is it better to keep these things on an ad hoc basis? ???
In the meantime...how old is this Archivist? Any chance of him retiring in the not too distant future? ;D
Jill
-
Also having many Berkshire ancestors I have to agree with you, jillruss.
Spain, where I am, or Yorkshire it is so hard to find anything in Berkshire. I don't understand why they can't produce CD's for sale as other counties do.
I can't afford their expensive searches and therefore they receive nothing from me and I'm sure many others are in the same position.
I am sure there are many frustrated Berkshire searchers out there!
Abiam
-
Had a look on FindMP and there is a horrible absence of BERKSHIRE and OXFORDSHIRE in the drop down menu..... ::) ::)
;D oooOOoooo {{{ waving }}} add me in there please Abiam... ;D
Although I do get 'home' a bit more than you guys. 4/5 times a year.
Any one else need anything and I'll add to my list. Just pm me.
-
Both Bucks and Berks didn't go over from familyhistoryonline to FindMyPast
I was watching the space, but it does appear that Berks won't go onto FindMyPast now.
The Sarum marriage licence bonds are still there, which do have marriages from some of my Berks ancestors (improbably even places like Winkfield were in the Diocese of Salisbury)
-
Six parishes in East Bekshire were in the 18th century part of Wiltshire namely Wokingham, Sandhurst, Hurst, Sonning, Rushcombe and Arborfield. Three others Sunninghill, Blewbury and Welford were also peculiars of the Dean of Sarum. Winkfield never was. However the archdeaconery of Berkshire used to belong to the diocese of Salisbury until it was transferred to Oxford in 1834.
As a result many of the parish records including I believe some of the bishop's transcripts were in Wiltshire record office.
There is still a boundary stone opposite the entrance to All Saints Church in Wokingham marking the boundary betwen Berkshire and Wiltshire.
David
-
The issue with Berks, Bucks and Oxon records is a Diocesan one, nothing to do with the Berks RO. The three FHSs are all trying to get the Diocese to change their stance - perhaps the Berks and Bucks records will get to FindMyPast one day.
The PRs for the former Wiltshire parishes are all in the BRO - which works on the boundaries of the Archdeaconry of Berks (essentially those of pre-1974 Berkshire).
BTs are Diocesan records, so those for Berkshire pre-1836 are in the Wiltshire & Swindon RO.
As for the lack of information from Berks - all available volunteers are putting in as much time as they can transcribing records. However, there is always a shortage of volunteers ...
And the Berkshire Marriage Index is not that 'patchy' - it is almost complete from the earliest registers to 1837. However, it does not include parishes moved to Oxfordshire in 1974 (those are in OFHS's North Berkshire Marriage Index).
-
Just to clarify when I referred to the parish records of the "Wiltshire parishes" I was thinking beyond the parish registers which I realized are in Berkshire Record Office. For example I believe any wills are in the Wilts record office and I am not sure where any contents of the parish chest may have finished up although Berks Record Office is more likely.
David
-
And the Berkshire Marriage Index is not that 'patchy' - it is almost complete from the earliest registers to 1837. However, it does not include parishes moved to Oxfordshire in 1974 (those are in OFHS's North Berkshire Marriage Index).
I keep checking the Berks FHS website marriage database for marriages in some of the parishes I'm interested in (e.g Waltham St Lawrence). A lot of them have later years covered but have earlier years decribed as still to be checked and then added to the database. That's why I used the word 'patchy'.
Jill
-
I have 25% from my tree from Hungerford, Coleshill, Bisham, Tilehurst, Cookham, Reading (sts Mary, Giles, Lawrence, Greyfriars etc). Some of the Records are on the IGI e.g. St Mary but not St Lawrence and then only in their abbreviated form e.g. no occupations, father's and occupations, witnesses and virtually no burials.
It would be nice to buy CDs if available, but usually too expensive as most people only stayed in one parish for a couple of generations and then moved on, so that a personal search is the only viable solution.
However, as both the BRO and the FHS building are only open during the working week, I can never get there. Other offices such as Rotherham or Birmingham or Wiltshire or Oxfordshire can do it, so why not Berkshire? They do it by closing to the public on quiet days such as Monday or Tuesday. If I can't see data on the net or buy reasonably priced data discs or booklets, the information is effectively denied to me, which runs contrary to the spirit of Freedom of Information. Why should information only be limited to the retired, the student, the shift worker or the unemployed?
Presumably the BRO will quote lack of resources - it doesn't say much much for Berkshire's priorities and quoting back the comments about a lack of retired people, do we have then to think that the county is only populated by young money-grabbers who resent every penny of money spent on libraries but who will be save the county on free bus passes, social services and care home expenditure by emigrating when they retire? Aren't local government supposed to serve the populace that pay for them?
Annoyed,
-
Berkshire FHS search rooms are open on the 2nd and 4th Sundays of the month from 11.00 to 4.00.
Have you checked their web site for details of CDs etc. which can be purchased?
David
-
Hello Annoyed Warwick, I'm with you all the way. They are so behind the times, it's unbelievable. Thank goodness my mum comes from Kent..... :D
8) Anyway, I go home now and then to visit family... and my rucksack is full of look up's for people. Send me a PM and I'll do what I can.. :P
Regards, Lesanne.
-
I have a very small Berks branch - my gt gt gt grandfather was from Winkfield
I have managed one visit to BRO to date
When the Berks marriage index was online at familyhistoryonline, I found a couple of marriages.
I have been pretty much deadlocked for a long time. I have one couple that married at Clewer, and I bought the CD, but neither come from there. My one hop is that a marriage licence will be at BRO so I can find where they are from
So the Berks FHS room is unlikely to help me, just the BRO
Bob
-
Berks FHS has a large number of fiches of Sarum Marriage Licence Bonds for sale and these include Berkshire. Copies of the fiches which it sells are usually available for use in its search rooms.
I think that the originals of these and any similar Berkshire records including wills, will be in Wiltshire Record Office rather than the BRO as most of Berkshire was in the diocese of Sarum until the middle of the 19th century. The advantage is that Wiltshire FHS has transcribed many of them.
This of course does not apply to the parish records.
David
-
Berks FHS has a large number of fiches of Sarum Marriage Licence Bonds for sale and these include Berkshire. Copies of the fiches which it sells are usually available for use in its search rooms.
These are also available on CD from Wilts FHS. They are the bonds/allegations held in the WSRO, I would be surprised if the BRO don't have a load of them (to be honest I have never had the need to check their holding).
I think that the originals of these and any similar Berkshire records including wills, will be in Wiltshire Record Office rather than the BRO as most of Berkshire was in the diocese of Sarum until the middle of the 19th century. The advantage is that Wiltshire FHS has transcribed many of them.
Most Berkshire wills are at the BRO - WSRO only have the Diocesan and most of the Peculiars. Needless to say TNA have the Archdiocesan wills (PCC).
-
The Sarum marriage licence bonds DID transfer from Familyhistoryonline to Findmypast. unlike the Berks Marriage Index
-
These are also available on CD from Wilts FHS. They are the bonds/allegations held in the WSRO, I would be surprised if the BRO don't have a load of them (to be honest I have never had the need to check their holding).
The Berks RO has a card index to the marriage licence bonds/allegations for the Archdeaconry of Berkshire. However, the originals were destroyed when a local Reading solicitors' office was bombed in WWII.
-
Hi
I was so excited when I saw the heading Parish Registers and thought at last I can make some progress with my Berkshire ancestors! Then disappointment!
Now I feel proud of Lincolnshire for having archives that are keeping up with the times and allowing FreeReg to transcribe and also for being a very small part of the team that has done the transcriptions - I'm definitely spurred on to get back to my transcribing!
-
:D Hello Rely01,
What names are you looking for and where? I'll keep an eye out for them next time I go home.
Best wishes
Lesanne.
oooo P.S. Welcome to Rootschat... :D
-
Hi Lesanne
Thanks for the offer.
It's mainly the Hatch family, initially at Shinfield; I've got them from familysearch going back to the marriage of John Hatch and Susannah Holloway 15/7/1765. Shinfield, Berkshire, down to the familysearch info that John Hatch baptised 6/9/1801, Shinfield, Berkshire. parents John Hatch and Sarah. I've not got a marriage for him but his daughter (the first child I have for them) was baptised in Shinfield: Hannah Hatch baptised 3/6/1827, Shinfield, Berkshire. parents John Hatch and Maria. They had other children in Shinfield (found via the census): Charles c1830, Thomas c1833, Phillip c1836, John c1838, Sarah baptised 26/7/1840 (from familysearch), Marianne baptised 6/11/1842 (from familysearch), William c1845 and Frederick c1847.
Thomas is my 3 x great grandfather and I purchased a copy of his marriage certificate: Thomas Hatch, Father John Hatch and Mary Cusden, Father Richard Cusden married 3/1/1859 the Parish Church, St Giles, Reading, Berkshire. (The Cusdens were also from Shinfield and I have baptisms but not marriages from familysearch back to Thomas c1770.)
They then have children born in Pangbourne: Hannah 1859 (goes to Brighton), Mary 1860 (goes to Surrey), John 1862 and Sarah 1865 (think death record: Sarah Jane Hatch born c1865. died aged 15yrs, Sept' qtr 1880, Bradfield District, Berkshire, assume Pangbourne where she was living in 1871 and parents are still living in 1881).
John 1862 is my great great grandfather and I purchased a copy of his marriage certificate too: John Hatch, Father Thomas Hatch and Annie Simmonds, Father Samuel Simmonds married 25/12/1883 at St Jude's Church in the parish of East Bristow, Surrey. They then go to London and have children in various districts!
Our biggest stumbling block at the moment is Annie Simmonds. From the census after she was married, she was born c1859 either READING Berkshire England or Caversham, Oxfordshire, England. We've found some Annie Simmonds on the census but not with a father Samuel like the marriage certificate says and tehre's too many to go ordering the possible birth certificates! So just checking out this possibility would be a fantastic help without taking up too much of your time, unless any of the rest fits in with what you are already doing.
Thanks so much
rely01
-
Oxford record office has the Caversham records for both churches up to about 191, so you might find them there (they are open on Saturdays!!).
Also good news, Berkshire FHS has brought out a CD of Reading St Lawrence registers, so that should fill in a load of gaps.
-
Hi Warwick122
thanks for letting me know about Oxford but I don't think I'll be getting there any time soon - I live in North Lincolnshire and had back surgery about 10 weeks ago and only manage to drive to the local town! Trying to find a day when my husband has no meetings at work and can take me to the "local" archives at Lincoln, Doncaster or Beverley is proving impossible at the moment so I think Oxford is out of the question!
Thanks anyway,
Rachel
-
There's a birth entry for an Ann Elizabeth Simmonds on Free BMD -
Reading Reg District Vol. 2c Page 326 Sept Quarter 1858
which could be her. Might it be worth sending for the birth certificate?
I have the PRs for Reading St Lawrence & Caversham St Peter and there's no sign of a baptism for her at either of them.
Jill
-
You can also try your luck on Berkshire BMD
http://www.berkshirebmd.org.uk/
-
These are also available on CD from Wilts FHS. They are the bonds/allegations held in the WSRO, I would be surprised if the BRO don't have a load of them (to be honest I have never had the need to check their holding).
The Berks RO has a card index to the marriage licence bonds/allegations for the Archdeaconry of Berkshire. However, the originals were destroyed when a local Reading solicitors' office was bombed in WWII.
What information can I expect to discover by viewing this document, other than the brides and grooms names (which I already know)for a marriage that took place in St.Nicolas Parish Church, Newbury in 1757.
I have already checked Sarum MLs at W&SRO, and it seems that the Archdeacon 'forgot' to send them to the Bishop.
Thanks,
Andy
-
These are also available on CD from Wilts FHS. They are the bonds/allegations held in the WSRO, I would be surprised if the BRO don't have a load of them (to be honest I have never had the need to check their holding).
The Berks RO has a card index to the marriage licence bonds/allegations for the Archdeaconry of Berkshire. However, the originals were destroyed when a local Reading solicitors' office was bombed in WWII.
What information can I expect to discover by viewing this document, other than the brides and grooms names (which I already know)for a marriage that took place in St.Nicolas Parish Church, Newbury in 1757.
I have already checked Sarum MLs at W&SRO, and it seems that the Archdeacon 'forgot' to send them to the Bishop.
I'm not sure what the index includes - the only additional info on a bond would be the ages of the happy couple (usually not precise unless under 21) and the names of the bondsmen (often relatives).
The Archdeacon did not forget to send anything - he simply filed them. Marriage bonds, like wills, were handled by several levels of the church hierachy - in Berkshire you could get a licence from the Bishop, the Dean (these two covered by the WHFS index), the Archdeacon or a surrogate (local rectors/vicars who were empowered to issue licences). There may well have been others in Peculiars and Liberties. They did not all go to the Bishop for filing.
-
Thank you newburychap, I knew i'd get a concise answer from you, i'm relatively new to marriage license bonds/allegations research, to be honest this is my first ancestor I am attempting to research using MLs.
I thought that it was the Archdeacons' duty to send the bonds/allegations to the Bishop/Dean.....as I stated, it's all new to me.
Is it only BRO that holds the card index, and would it by any chance inform us of the couples' abodes ?.
Is this index card a C19 transcript from the Archdeacons originals that were destroyed during WWII ?.
You've been a great help, the fog is beginning to lift,
Andy
-
The BRO card index is only there
E.g. I had a marriage in Clewer
It was clear from Clewer PRs that neither was from Clewer
The index told me one was from New Windsor , the other from Warfield.
-
Thanks stonechat, i'm starting to get excited now.
The marriage i'm researching took place in 1757, is this about the same time as the Clewer marriage you researched?, the reason I ask is that if it isn't then maybe the abodes of both parties probably won't be stated in my case.
Would I be correct in thinking that it could be possible for one parish to state the abodes and another not to, or are the abodes always stated in your experience.
-
The marriage i'm researching took place in 1757
What names are you looking for - I may be in the BRO in a couple of hours and could do a car index lookup while I wait for the documents I want to see to be brought out of store.
-
The marriage i'm researching took place in 1757
What names are you looking for - I may be in the BRO in a couple of hours and could do a car index lookup while I wait for the documents I want to see to be brought out of store.
Hey very much appreciated newburychap the marriage took place at St.Nicolas Parish Church,Newbury between William Moulding/Moulden/Maulden/Molden and Mary Shaw on 08/Nov/1757, and I hope you find an entry somewhere in the three preceeding months.......their first child was baptised 1/June/1758, so you probably wouldn't need to search back that far which would probably explain the need for the quick marriage.
Thanks again, I was there all day Thursday last week and I ran out of time it's a 5 hour round trip drive for me so you don't realise how helpfull you're being.
-
As a regular user of the Berkshire Record Office (I visit around 10-15 times annually) I realise that I am in a privileged position with regards to other Berkshire researchers, for example Peter Hyde in Canada. My research, therefore, has allowed me to acquaint myself with the services that the Berkshire Record Office and the Berkshire Family History Society have to offer, and what records are held.
Firstly, although I agree with Peter about the County Archivist and his staff not exactly complying to the terms of their ethos, I also understand that their hands are tied with the Copyright being held by the incumbant of individual parish churches, the Diocesian structure and the unique way that Berkshire has been divided into Unitary Authorities, each with their own separate District Councils and systems. Therefore, I feel it is unfair that the County Archivist and the BRO itself is to 'blame' for not allowing their records to be published digitally, or indeed scanned by the LDS. The power to sanction this is not entirely in their hands, and rely on many other different organisations to comply. That, and the fact that Copyright of these records would be almost impossible to enforce, mean that the BRO and the 'board' are reluctant to allow access to their records online. Understandably so, for although this would provide free and more liberal access to the records at our leisure, it would also mean the death of the BRO as although I am aware that the Parish Registers aren't ALL what they have to offer, a large part of the attraction of genealogists and local historians to BRO itself is reliant on the Parish Registers they hold.
In my opinion, it is wholly unjustified to be solely critical of the system that the BRO and BFHS maintain with regards to the Parish Registers. For although individual parishes may remain untranscribed or undeniably difficult to access, there are many publications produced by the BRO in conjunction with the BFHS, covering a variety of topics. In fairness to the BRO, they are allowing less familiar records to be transcribed and made more available to the general public through companies such as the EurekA Partnership. Although Genealogy in the 21st Century is a huge thing, I can't help but think that the main progression into popularity in this day and age is the Internet. The LDS online have many Berkshire parishes covered, and although there is little progress made by FreeReg, and a lack of records on subscription websites such as FindMyPast, at least records online do exist for Berkshire. Inevitably, that is little comfort for researchers who live far away from the BRO, but at least progress is being made, although I understand that the BRO are reluctant to put these records online, but understandably so.
With publications such as the Berkshire Burial Index and the newly-released Berkshire Marriage Index, I feel it is unfair to brand the BRO as unwilling to release these records. Granted that these records may be pricey, they do offer an unparalled advantage over other Counties. I am unaware of any such project available today produced by any other CRO or FHS, but please do correct me if I am incorrect.
As for the extortionate amount to pay for records printed or photographed at CRO's and BRO especially, I am of a split opinion on this matter. On the one hand, the prices are extortionate at 50pence per A4 or A3 copy, or #1 per photograph (which at #5 for an all-day camera pass at Centre of Bucks Studies or free at The National Archives is outrageous), I believe that one must compare these fees with the bigger picture, so-to-speak. In comparison to the price of Certificates in England and Wales, being #9.25 each, the 50p printout does not seem as exhorbitary, especially if these printouts are being sought from Parish Registers, which offer very similar information to that given in Certificates. I feel that Genealogy is not a 'cheap' hobby strictly speaking, and one could spend a fortune on it, but that if we choose to continue with our hobby, we must be prepared to spend money to receive the information requested (although I definitely agree that the price VicWinAnn was quoted is absolutely outrageous). After speaking with various Genealogists and Rootschatters, who concede that while the pricing is high at CRO's and at the BRO in particular, the money they receive from the printouts and copies, etc, contribute to a large proportion of the money they receive. I feel I am digressing.
The point I am trying to make is although, as stated before, the BRO do nothing but offer the 'bare minimum' in terms of their free services to the general public, the cost of allowing these records to be digitised and put online could cause a greater detramental effect to the BRO due to lost revenue, and ultimately mean that the records we seek to see online will no longer be purchased, or kept, by the BRO.
All in all, I believe that each and every one of us will have our opinions on what records should be released, to whom and when. But ultimately the power lays out of our hands and in the hands of the Diocese, the local government, the BRO and the various UA Councils. I neither agree that the BRO is incorrect in not allowing their Parish Registes to be digitised and released, nor disagree. I feel that the situation is a complex one that has many possible solutions and answers, which I am afraid I cannot give.
Matt
Aged 16 years.
-
You misunderstand the situation Matt - the BRO is not preventing online PR access, the owners (through the Diocese of Oxford) are the ones who are putting up the barriers.
The same situation applies to Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire church records.
-
With publications such as the Berkshire Burial Index and the newly-released Berkshire Marriage Index, I feel it is unfair to brand the BRO as unwilling to release these records. Granted that these records may be pricey, they do offer an unparalled advantage over other Counties. I am unaware of any such project available today produced by any other CRO or FHS, but please do correct me if I am incorrect.
I do think, in general, FHS's would make more money by offering these products at a lower price. All the hard work has been done by volunteers (bless them) so the costs are minimal. The newly-released marriage index is much too pricey for me, given that this is a first edition with the vast majority of the data still to come. They might sell 2 at £20, but I bet they'd sell up to 10 at £8!
Recently, after much agonising, I paid £25 for a complete marriage index on CD from another FHS. While the data is invaluable and has taken many many hours to collate, the product itself is very shoddy and not user-friendly, contains no key to abbreviations and symbols, and has many errors. It really is very amateur. We have had to export all the data into an Excel file in order to be able to make use of it. Which prompted us to wonder - why not just offer it as a download for a couple of quid or (shock horror) FREE? Bet they hardly sell any at £25.
By contrast, I think the Berks FHS individual PR discs are very reasonably priced, and I'm grateful that Berkshire issues them separately instead of bundled on one disc, as do other FHS including Oxon. None of the parishes I want are on the same CD, and at £17+ a time it's too much - as a result they get nothing from me. No one's a winner there.
-
By contrast, I think the Berks FHS individual PR discs are very reasonably priced, and I'm grateful that Berkshire issues them separately instead of bundled on one disc, as do other FHS including Oxon. None of the parishes I want are on the same CD, and at £17+ a time it's too much - as a result they get nothing from me. No one's a winner there.
I agree, Sloe Gin. For the Burial Index and Marriage Index from the Berkshire Family History Society, the pricing structure (£20 for 1st Edition Marriage Index with 346,000 names and £16 for 9th Edition Burial Index with 720,000 names) is very fair considering doubtless hours of transcription, collation and production to produce such thorough and user-friendly data for the general public. I think that this data is invaluable in comparison to other counties and even though it may be pricey, I think that in comparison to the OFHS Marriage Index, for instance, at £50, the Berkshire Indexes are priced rather fairly. Think of the amount of ancestors and forbears are included on a disc with 720,000 names! As an owner of this publication I have had no regrets in purchasing it - it has been nothing but useful in my tree.
The Parish Register discs from Berks FHS are also very well priced for the information covered, and offers an advantage over OFHS publications due to the fact that the OFHS often produce their publications on Fiche rather than on CD, and as Sloe Gin said, they often bundle many parish registers together on one disc that isn't often worth the money if you don't have any research in the other parishes.
I do agree though Sloe Gin that if the Indexes were more reasonably priced in the first place then sales would be encouraged...leading to more sales and therefore more profit for the FHS in general. I am just glad though that these indexes exist, or my research wouldn't be at the stage it is today.
Matt
-
For the Burial Index and Marriage Index from the Berkshire Family History Society, the pricing structure (£20 for 1st Edition Marriage Index with 346,000 names and £16 for 9th Edition Burial Index with 720,000 names)
But there you highlight my point, Matt - on the one hand £16 for 720k names ... surely the embryo Marriage Index with half as much data would be much more attractive at half the price? I'd buy it for that price, and would then pay to upgrade as and when more data is added.
-
Don't get me wrong, Sloe Gin, I agree - I would much rather pay a lower price for the Marriage Index, and then pay further amounts for the future upgrades. This would then encourage more sales - as you say, they might sell 2 at #20 each, but then more would be encouraged if they were at a lower price.
As it stands, I can't afford the Marriage Index and the upgrades when I can easily access the RO at Reading and view all the marriages for free. When there are far more names and marriages included, I will be more tempted to buy the disc but I can't help feeling that won't be for a few more years.
-
Comparatively the charge is in the middle
Counties I have in my tree
Surrey Charge only £11
But if you want an update, the full charge applies unlike Berks
Hunts Charge £26 (there haven't been updates)
I have one from Yorkshire that is £15 for one parish of marriages but only goes back to 1678
North east Cheshire Marriage Index is £17.50
So Berkshire's charges are not exceptional
Different counties have different policies at both the RO and the FHS