RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: DmTomo on Thursday 26 November 15 11:49 GMT (UK)
-
There seems to be a variety of views from "authorities" about whether Parish Registers should be open to view.
The registers are surely public documents marking events.
A marriage is a public declaration of the bond between two people. Because our law forbids bigamy the records should be publicly available for anyone to check that people have the status they declare. That declaration also can be used to show the legitimacy of any progeny. I think that the Data Protection Acts cannot apply because the marriage is a public declaration by the people concerned. I think I have seen a report of a 90th wedding anniversary but very few get to their 70th and most don't get to their 50th. Why should marriage records be closed for 100 years?
Baptism is similarly (usually!) a declaration by the parents of the birth of a child. The only reason I can think of why someone would want to hide a baptism record would be if they wished to hide their real age.
Burial records only show that someone with a particular name died. The dead have no rights under the Data Protection Act.
I can understand some authorities who say that their records are only available at their premises and cannot be put on-line. I can understand why some authorities put them on-line to save having to deal with the endless enquiries from us, and possibly as a source of revenue from the likes of Ancestry and Findmypast. What I don't understand are restrictions which prevent them being available until they are 100 years old. Everyone has seen from "The Day of the Jackal" how records can be used to create false identities but one has to wonder how often that is done. Is it really such a threat as to close the records for everyone?
What does RootsChat think?
-
I wasn't aware of any access issues with parish records. Most local record offices have archives containing old church records, baptisms, marriages and burials, these have been put on microfiche. I can view these records on microfiche at my local record office. I can also contact them and arrange to view original church records at the record office that are not on microfiche. The archives at my local record office includes many 20th century records and there is no problem for me looking at records under 100 years old.
Blue
-
I've never had a problem viewing parish records either on line or at the archives. Do you mean more modern BMD records that are only available in large public libraries?
-
OP might mean those churches that retain their registers and will not let you view them, just pay them to look at them for you. Maybe?
-
I've never had a problem viewing parish records either on line or at the archives. Do you mean more modern BMD records that are only available in large public libraries?
I think what the OP is saying is that all parish registers including recent ones should be online. I disagree with them being 'public documents', I believe they belong to the church and what they do with them, and who they allow access to them, is up to the church. Fortunately most churches do allow access but ultimately, as the parish incumbent is the copyright holder, they have the final say in what is posted online.
Andy
-
I've never had a problem either apart from some non conformist records are still held at the church/chapel and not been deposited at the RO.
-
You can see the Parochial Fees Table for searches in Church Registers at https://www.churchofengland.org/weddings-baptisms-funerals/fees.aspx
Stan
-
The Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 requires that all non-current registers and records which are over 100 year old must be deposited in the Diocesan Record Office and registers whose earliest entry are 150 years old. The 1978 Measure was brought up to date by the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1992, which came into force on 1st January 1993.Registers of baptisms, marriages and burials and registers of banns, confirmations and services when completed have to be permanently deposited at the Diocesan Record Office. Where Parish Archives remain with an incumbent they should be available for inspection 'at all reasonable hours' and fees are payable as set out in the 'Table of Parochial Fees'
Stan
-
The Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 requires that all non-current registers and records which are over 100 year old must be deposited in the Diocesan Record Office and registers whose earliest entry are 150 years old. The 1978 Measure was brought up to date by the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1992, which came into force on 1st January 1993.Registers of baptisms, marriages and burials and registers of banns, confirmations and services when completed have to be permanently deposited at the Diocesan Record Office. Where Parish Archives remain with an incumbent they should be available for inspection 'at all reasonable hours' and fees are payable as set out in the 'Table of Parochial Fees'
Stan
Interesting!
That seems to say that older registers must be deposited and newer ones can be searched by the publice for the fee (£27/hour).
I know of at least one CoE church where ALL registers are retained, and you are not allowed to view them yourselves. They charge £19 for them searching for first hour (including issue of a copy of any entry found) and £16 per hour after that. ???
-
The "authorities" are quoted as being the reason for records being unavailable by Findmypast and I have seen it on other websites too.
I was trying to find any legal reason anyone might have for withholding records. I am not sure how a church's incumbent could claim copyright on documents created by someone else before they were born. I do think that they are public records which should be available to all.
-
I know of at least one CoE church where ALL registers are retained, and you are not allowed to view them yourselves. They charge £19 for them searching for first hour (including issue of a copy of any entry found) and £16 per hour after that. ???
Those are the old fees and not the latest 2015 2016 ones, that I posted. I understand that all non-current registers and records which are over 100 year old must be deposited in the Diocesan Record Office.
Stan
Stan
-
At this stage of my life, that is actually being alive, I certainly wouldn't be very happy if my marriage - and divorce details - were available to the public without proper and thorough legal authentication. (The divorce details were obviously added by the authorities at the time of the divorce). We are living in an era of Identity Theft, and I believe we need to be very conscious of that fact. There are six people fully named on my marriage cert, and with addresses, mine, my husband, and both sets of parents.
I actually don't believe Parish Records under 100 years should be publically online either! Much as I would like them to be! 😃
-
The most recent record I've got is a photo taken from an original baptism register from 1970. The original register is in the record office. The church is still open and there was no access problem. I can understand the reluctance of churches or whoever to have more recent records online. I don't think it should be that easy to find background details of living people for privacy reasons.
Blue
-
I know of at least one CoE church where ALL registers are retained, and you are not allowed to view them yourselves. They charge £19 for them searching for first hour (including issue of a copy of any entry found) and £16 per hour after that. ???
Those are the old fees and not the latest 2015 ones, that I posted. I understand that all non-current registers and records which are over 100 year old must be deposited in the Diocesan Record Office.
Stan
Stan
except for St Mary Abbots Kensington
http://smanews.weebly.com/contacts.html
-
I am not sure how a church's incumbent could claim copyright on documents created by someone else before they were born. I do think that they are public records which should be available to all.
The register books referred to in subsection (1) above shall be provided by, and shall be deemed to belong to, the parochial church council of the parish. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1978/2
Stan
-
I know of at least one CoE church where ALL registers are retained, and you are not allowed to view them yourselves. They charge £19 for them searching for first hour (including issue of a copy of any entry found) and £16 per hour after that. ???
Those are the old fees and not the latest 2015 ones, that I posted. I understand that all non-current registers and records which are over 100 year old must be deposited in the Diocesan Record Office.
Stan
Stan
except for St Mary Abbots Kensington
http://smanews.weebly.com/contacts.html
That was who I was thinking of Dawn (except I found the page with the old fees).
-
except for St Mary Abbots Kensington
http://smanews.weebly.com/contacts.html
They say The basic statuary fee of £28 covers the first hours search and one copy of an entry if found. Any additional time is charged at £28 per hour/part of hour. They are the fees for 2015, the table I posted before is for 2016, my mistake.
Stan
-
The "authorities" are quoted as being the reason for records being unavailable by Findmypast and I have seen it on other websites too.
I was trying to find any legal reason anyone might have for withholding records. I am not sure how a church's incumbent could claim copyright on documents created by someone else before they were born. I do think that they are public records which should be available to all.
Legal reasons can mean that there's legislation preventing them from being published, such as the Data Protection Act. It is a hugely complex piece of legislation which places an enormous amount of responsibility on the data controller, whether or not they created the record. The fines involved for breaching the act are massive, and not something you'd want against you. The same goes for breaches of copyright, and note that under that legislation it is the individual who breaks the law who is fined regardless of the organisation they work for.
While some records are available to the public, that's not the same as them being a public record.
-
except for St Mary Abbots Kensington
http://smanews.weebly.com/contacts.html
They say The basic statuary fee of £28 covers the first hours search and one copy of an entry if found. Any additional time is charged at £28 per hour/part of hour. They are the fees for 2015, the table I posted before is for 2016, my mistake.
Stan
But they keep ALL the registers and insist on doing the searching themselves.
-
But they keep ALL the registers and insist on doing the searching themselves.
Statutory searches
62. The custodians of registers retained in a parish have a statutory obligation to
make registers of baptisms, marriages and burials available to members of the public
at all reasonable hours and to provide, if requested, certified copies of entries. A guide to Church of England Parochial Fees http://www.rootschat.com/links/01gkh/
It depends on their interpretation of "available to members of the public"
Stan
-
I understood that as a marriage ceremony was open to anyone who chooses to just turn up, that there is no reason for the records not to be available. After all the banns are read (at least at the moment, although I know the church authorities are saying this is out of date) so that anyone can find out who is getting married and make an objection if necessary.
I agree with divorce records not being on line, but I don't see what the problem is with baptism records. I guess it's just a money making exercise for the Dioceses who hold them.
-
The main problem I've found has been with trying to gain access to Roman Catholic records - although that's now a bit easier than formerly in many places. My main problems come with trying to hunt for possible events on Cheshire and Derbyshire. Lancashire Records are generally okay, and West Yorkshire, for the periods I want.
-
I guess it's just a money making exercise for the Dioceses who hold them.
Somebody has to be available in the church to produce the registers, and they should be paid for their time and inconveniece, and for the lighting and heating of the church. The parish church is paid for by the contributions of the congregation, my parish needs £1,100 a week at least, all provided by the congregation, and gets nothing from the Diocese.
Stan
-
It still seems a lot of money to me. An appt could be made so that no-one was inconvenienced, and the appropriate records taken to the vestry or other small office. I didn't have any problems at a local church when I was searching on behalf of a Rootschatter. I e-mailed the vicar, who kindly gave me the name, e-mail address and 'phone number of the secretary. I contacted him and he searched the records for me. There was absolutely no charge.
-
If all the parish records now have to be stored by the Diocese, does that mean that the ones held in county archives have to be handed over?
-
I have never encountered any problems viewing registers.
A few years ago I was lucky enough to be able to study the original register kept in a safe in Gulval Church in Cornwall, it was wonderful! :)
-
If all the parish records now have to be stored by the Diocese, does that mean that the ones held in county archives have to be handed over?
The Diocesan Record Office is usualy the County Record Office.
Stan
-
In the Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1929, a diocese record office was defined as a church-owned building. However, the 1978 measure aimed to draw on the network of records offices that were subsequently established throughout the country and the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, which allowed local authority record offices to acquire and care for records of local significance. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/legislation/other-archival-legislation/parochial-registers/
Stan
-
If the Diocesan Record Office is usually the County Record Office, then what is the charge for? I've been to Hants County Record Office and there was no charge, and I've also been to look at archives in Barrow in Furness and Boston, Lincolnshire (although they do not hold many) and there was no charge.
-
The charge is for registers still held at the church.
Stan
-
If a particular church does not want to request a fee that is up to them.
Stan
-
"Registers of baptisms, marriages and burials and registers of banns, confirmations and services when completed have to be permanently deposited at the Diocesan Record Office"
So if the Diocesan Record Office is the usually the County Record Office and all registers when completed have to be permanently deposited at the Diocesan Record Office, then surely all but the newest ones should be in the County Record Offices.
-
I can't say for certain the procedure in other places, but here on the Isle of Man the situation is:
All registers up to 1883 have been microfilmed, and can be seen at the Manx Museum Library.
Registers after 1883 are usually available to be read, on application to the museum staff.
Those registers still being used are still with the relevant church or the Register Office. Some of these date to before WW2.
So far, I have failed to get a glimpse of any of these!
But then I can access various microfiche and other records at The Civil Registry, so it's not been a problem so far.
-
"Registers of baptisms, marriages and burials and registers of banns, confirmations and services when completed have to be permanently deposited at the Diocesan Record Office"
So if the Diocesan Record Office is the usually the County Record Office and all registers when completed have to be permanently deposited at the Diocesan Record Office, then surely all but the newest ones should be in the County Record Offices.
As I posted the Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 requires that all non-current registers and records which are over 100 year old must be deposited in the Diocesan Record Office and registers whose earliest entry are 150 years old.
Stan
-
There seems to be a variety of views from "authorities" about whether Parish Registers should be open to view.
The registers are surely public documents marking events.
No parish registers are private church documents though they are open to public inspection.
There is case law to back up the fact the public have a right to inspect and make copies from parish registers.
A marriage is a public declaration of the bond between two people. Because our law forbids bigamy the records should be publicly available for anyone to check that people have the status they declare. That declaration also can be used to show the legitimacy of any progeny. I think that the Data Protection Acts cannot apply because the marriage is a public declaration by the people concerned. .
Parish registers are exempt from the Data protection Act as there is legislation requiring them to be open for public inspection.
DPA 1998 section 35
“(1)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.”
I think I have seen a report of a 90th wedding anniversary but very few get to their 70th and most don't get to their 50th. Why should marriage records be closed for 100 years?
Baptism is similarly (usually!) a declaration by the parents of the birth of a child. The only reason I can think of why someone would want to hide a baptism record would be if they wished to hide their real age.
Burial records only show that someone with a particular name died. The dead have no rights under the Data Protection Act.
I can understand some authorities who say that their records are only available at their premises and cannot be put on-line. I can understand why some authorities put them on-line to save having to deal with the endless enquiries from us, and possibly as a source of revenue from the likes of Ancestry and Findmypast. What I don't understand are restrictions which prevent them being available until they are 100 years old. Everyone has seen from "The Day of the Jackal" how records can be used to create false identities but one has to wonder how often that is done. Is it really such a threat as to close the records for everyone?
What does RootsChat think?
Parish Register (except those where the church has closed) are for all intents and purposes under perpetual copyright as they are never completed (it comes under multiple authors).
The copyright of the registers is held by the incumbent.
It is up to him or her whether anyone can make a copy of the entire register, not the Diocese Archive or the County Record Office even when either of those two archives hold the original register.
"Registers of baptisms, marriages and burials and registers of banns, confirmations and services when completed have to be permanently deposited at the Diocesan Record Office"
So if the Diocesan Record Office is the usually the County Record Office and all registers when completed have to be permanently deposited at the Diocesan Record Office, then surely all but the newest ones should be in the County Record Offices.
As I posted the Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 requires that all non-current registers and records which are over 100 year old must be deposited in the Diocesan Record Office and registers whose earliest entry are 150 years old.
Stan
Sorry the above is wrong the incumbent may keep the parish registers for his/her church if they so wish.
The Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 states
“11(3) Where the bishop of a diocese issues an authorisation in writing to that effect, any register book or record which is required by section 10(1) of this Measure to be deposited in a diocesan record office for the diocese and is specified in the authorisation may be retained in parochial custody.
(4) An application for an authorisation under subsection (3) above shall be made in writing by the person or persons having the custody of the book or record in question, and the bishop shall issue the authorisation if he is satisfied that the provisions of the said Schedule 2 are being and will be complied with as respects that book or record.
Cheers
Guy
PS The Act may been seen on my Acts website at
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01gki/
-
I think the argument about preventing Identity Theft is very 21st-century. Before 1837, marriages were recorded at each church, and I doubt that many spouses, or the clerics, regarded that information as an announcement to the whole nation, only to the local community and those round about - where the partner often came from. So the OP's contention that those records are, or should be, 'public' may not be quite so persuasive.
After 1837 data became a bit more centralised, but it could still hardly be seen as an announcement to the nation, and I wonder just how much those indexes were searched then. Newlyweds wishing to go public could send a Hatch, Match or Despatch to a local or national paper. Maybe the OP should look there?
-
After 1837 data became a bit more centralised, but it could still hardly be seen as an announcement to the nation, and I wonder just how much those indexes were searched then.
You would be surprised. Genealogy didn't start in the 20th century. A quick perusal through many historical magazines will highlight letters that show people were wandering the countryside looking in parish records and then publishing , whether like Phillimore in book form , or letters to magazines :)
-
I think the argument about preventing Identity Theft is very 21st-century.
This actually is the 21st Century! And identity theft has gone on way back before then!
-
At this stage of my life, that is actually being alive, I certainly wouldn't be very happy if my marriage - and divorce details - were available to the public without proper and thorough legal authentication. (The divorce details were obviously added by the authorities at the time of the divorce). We are living in an era of Identity Theft, and I believe we need to be very conscious of that fact. There are six people fully named on my marriage cert, and with addresses, mine, my husband, and both sets of parents.
I actually don't believe Parish Records under 100 years should be publically online either! Much as I would like them to be!
So where do you stand on copies of statutory BMD records being available to the general public?
Imber
-
Non historical BDM's here in NZ already have restrictions on them if they are within certain time frames. Proof of connection is usually required when ordering the record - that's what I've had to do here in NZ with a couple of non - historical records. Don't actually have a problem with that!
-
So where do you stand on copies of statutory BMD records being available to the general public?
Imber
I don't believe that non-historical certificates should be available to the general public. I don't see why anybody should be able to get a copy of my English birth certificate without my permission. Australia has strict laws about access to certificates, you can't get a copy of my marriage certificate without my permission, I can't even get a copy of my adult childrens birth certificates without their permission.
Andy
-
These seems to be an important distinction between information being "available to the public", and information being "available, on the internet, indexed, searchable and free of charge, to the public".
BugBear
-
So where do you stand on copies of statutory BMD records being available to the general public?
Imber
I don't believe that non-historical certificates should be available to the general public. I don't see why anybody should be able to get a copy of my English birth certificate without my permission. Australia has strict laws about access to certificates, you can't get a copy of my marriage certificate without my permission, I can't even get a copy of my adult childrens birth certificates without their permission.
Andy
Why not it has been legal in England & Wales since 1836 and has worked perfectly well for the last 178 or so years?
Here in the UK we are an open society which does not have a law of privacy.
It is part of being free that we have the liberty to access such records.
Cheers
Guy
-
Why not - it has been legal in England & Wales since 1836 and has worked perfectly well for the last 178 or so years? Here in the UK we are an open society which does not have a law of privacy.
It is part of being free that we have the liberty to access such records.
I suppose it has worked, but only recently has it been so easy for 'anyone' to get copies. I imagine the providers needed to get a return on their investment and restrictions were inconvenient. Before digitised indexing it required lots of time and sleuthing to get anywhere, and only then if searchers knew what they were doing. I have obtained several copies of certificates for harmless purposes, but I can easily see that some of their descendants might not like it. Some people get quite irate if their Email addresses are included on large mailshots, for instance.
-
Andrew - I think you're confusing a "private" email address which you are dntitled to keep to yourself with a public record (BMD certificate or Census entry) which by it's nature should be open to everyone. I can't object to a stranger viewing a record which was made as a matter of law
Steve
-
Andrew - I think you're confusing a "private" email address which you are entitled to keep to yourself with a public record (BMD certificate or Census entry) which by its nature should be open to everyone. I can't object to a stranger viewing a record which was made as a matter of law
No, there's no confusion; and of course we are often referring to people long dead. But the fact that a record was made as a matter of law does not automatically make it public. Many people are still unwilling to reveal or discuss ancestral details, so probably don't like others ferreting even if they are legally permitted to.
-
I suppose it has worked, but only recently has it been so easy for 'anyone' to get copies. I imagine the providers needed to get a return on their investment and restrictions were inconvenient.
Not sure why you're saying 'only recently'. As I understand it, copies have been available to anyone who can pay the statutory fee since civil registration began in 1837.
When you say 'providers', are you referring to GRO? They are part of a UK government department, and can only charge enough to cover their costs. There is no profit element and no 'investment' on which to get a return. Access to BMD certificates is unrestricted (except for some recent ones) because that's the law.
Carol
-
Not sure why you're saying 'only recently'. As I understand it, copies have been available to anyone who can pay the statutory fee since civil registration began in 1837.
Carol, I carefully said 'so easy for ...'. It used to be quite a hassle, as I'm sure you know. I suppose the change is a bit like our young generation spending half their lives plugged into Facebook or tablets?
The investment I referred to was the effort needed to transcribe and index everything, which must have cost, even if some of it was done in the sub-continent, I believe?
-
No, the indexing has been going on since 1837 and is automatic - either I've misunderstood you, or you have no concept of how the GRO works
Steve
-
Firstly my apologies for butting in on this topic at a very late stage :o And I can see that the focus has moved over time.
However, do we basically have the case of:
I MUST have access to everything possible about MY particular family
vs
How dare YOU think that YOU can access ANY information about MY family?
Not sure you can have it both ways? :-\ :-\ :-*
-
The investment I referred to was the effort needed to transcribe and index everything, which must have cost, even if some of it was done in the sub-continent, I believe?
FreeBMD has transcribed the GRO Indexes with mainly UK-based volunteers.
Personally it's always my first port of call for BMDs!
Ancestry then bought the transcriptions from FreeBMD.
Maybe FindMyPast and GenesReunited did also?
-
Ancestry have only used the FreeBMD transcriptions up to 1915 :) And FreeBMD DO accept corrections - I know, I've had to correct a number of my transcriptions :o Whether these are taken on by Ancestry, I don't know. FreeBMD uses voluntary transcribers from all over the world - my Co-Ordinator lives in Melbourne, Australia (I met up with him in 2010).
Don't know where FindMyPast and GR get there entries from, but assume it's the same place as they're connected to each other.
-
Find My Past started life as 1837Online which started to transcribe the indexes in 2001.
http://www.findmypast.co.uk/content/company-history
-
No, the indexing has been going on since 1837 and is automatic - either I've misunderstood you, or you have no concept of how the GRO works
I'm sorry if I have not implied strongly enough that electronics and the internet have completely altered the accessibility of the information. I don't believe the GRO was electronically advanced in the Victorian era - the visible evidence suggests a lot of quill pens. ;)
-
I'm still trying to work out your "problem" :-\
-
I'm still trying to work out your "problem" :-\
Sorry, whose?
-
No, there's no confusion; and of course we are often referring to people long dead. But the fact that a record was made as a matter of law does not automatically make it public. Many people are still unwilling to reveal or discuss ancestral details, so probably don't like others ferreting even if they are legally permitted to.
Possibly, your's? You can't have it all ways up! Records are either public for all, or not!! You can't pick and choose. Either close them all down, from whenever - or allow access :-\ I don't see any problem at all. Perhaps the question might be - WHAT have you got to hide?
-
No, there's no confusion; and of course we are often referring to people long dead. But the fact that a record was made as a matter of law does not automatically make it public. Many people are still unwilling to reveal or discuss ancestral details, so probably don't like others ferreting even if they are legally permitted to.
What a lot of people forget is, that except for ones parents, and possibly grandparents, if they had a single child, our ancestors do not only belong to us, they are other people ancestors as well. This gives others just as much right to delve into our their lives as we do.
-
We used to love visiting the Family Records Centre in Myddelton Street, London, searching, quarter by quarter, the big, heavy ledgers of BMDs; yes, sometimes we had backache from doing so :) but I think that we had greater enjoyment and satisfaction then from the searching, face-to-face, so to speak, with the registers, more than on the internet now. We have, also, visited Mormons centres and county records offices to search microfiche and films.
An interesting article here, going back a few years
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/29/britishidentity.technology
-
No, the indexing has been going on since 1837 and is automatic - either I've misunderstood you, or you have no concept of how the GRO works
I'm sorry if I have not implied strongly enough that electronics and the internet have completely altered the accessibility of the information. I don't believe the GRO was electronically advanced in the Victorian era - the visible evidence suggests a lot of quill pens. ;)
Sorry Andrew, when I said the indexing was automatic, I didn't imply electronic - of course it was pen & ink in the early days, but it has been indexed in large volumes from the start and these volumes have, as far as I know, been available to the public sine their inception. It's surely wrong to suggest what was once public should now be closed because of technological advances
Steve
-
Many people are still unwilling to reveal or discuss ancestral details, so probably don't like others ferreting even if they are legally permitted to.
If you are talking about a matter of record ie birth death or marriage , then what is the issue?
Though I think you are confusing the availability of record sets with those ''family secrets''. Illegitimacy and bigamy and suicide are only part of a record set that has context
ie a person born on March 23 2015 is a record set , that the record set names only the mother needs context in culture. A single mother giving birth raises no eyebrows in the 21st century - so no stigma- and in 1815 - historical evidence suggests stigma was only attached to the upper classes.
Indeed, the complex picture of society in Pat Thane and Tanya Evans' history of single motherdom, Sinners? Scroungers? Saints? Unmarried Motherhood in 20th -Century England (Oxford University Press), shows that unmarried co-habitation, for example, was common as far back as the 1800s, when records first began. Thane, Research Professor in Contemporary History at King's College London, argues that there has never been such a thing as the ideal British family unit, but instead a whole raft of diverse arrangements to which the authorities turned a blind eye – until they had to pay for it.
If a person marries bigamously then it is a matter of law and should be pursued.
Suicide is being dragged out of the hole it has stayed in for so long that it too will no longer be attached to the awkward silences in families.
-
I don't get your point at all Andrew.
I can't understand all this? We all study our family history, and we all want to seek out as many records as we can to back up our research.
I only know that I have the highest admiration for the thousands and thousands of volunteers around the world whose transcriptions have opened new pathways for me to follow in the footsteps of my family, and for that I will be eternally grateful!
If official records are available to me - they're available, if they're not - they're not - I have to accept that, perhaps trying other avenues - and wait. End of story really.
Sure, we've all done it the hard way, slogging through microfilms etc for hrs at a time - doesn't make us heroes - there was no alternative.! I for one am more than happy that I seldom have to do that any more. On the other hand, it's quite a novel experience these days 😄
-
I may be mis-understanding the original question, but I am quite sure that in some jurisdictions, for example, New South Wales, Australia, that the various denominations Parish Registers are formally owned by the local Church parish that creates them, and that access to these registers is not an automatic 'right'. On the other hand, in more than fifty years of interest in entries in the various parish registers, I have not ever been denied access to any original register. In some instances I have located original registers when others thought it had been lost or at least mis-placed.
To me, it is simply a matter of being polite, asking permission and then waiting for the current incumbent to find the time to check and to respond to my request.
I agree with DavidG02's response re matters of record, and I note that Bigamy is a civil crime. I add that our 21st century eyes require precision almost to the nth degree, yet in my own lifetime, people were able to change their names without anyone becoming confused or suspecting the motive for such change. The precision to exact details is currently being associated with identity theft and other adverse impacts on our society, yet in earlier generations the taboo topics included co-habitation v marriage, multiple domestic partners, and fatal self-harm.
Civil registration of Birth, Death and Marriage events commenced at different times across the Australian continent, as in the 19th century there were FIVE separate British Colonies on the mainland, plus TWO further British Colonies nearby (New Zealand and Tasmania).... Each colony established its own civil registration process, however many of the denominations operated in each colony and so the church registers can contain the detail that the various civil registrations often missed. But that does NOT give the civil authorities the right to demand access to the church registers. Of course, the church registers can be handed over to the civil authorities, and this has occurred on many occasions across those seven former colonies, but in co-operation with rather than by demand.
It is quite possible that throughout the British Empire, that for example Church of England parish registers have been accessed by the various civil authorities, and that the processes and protocols associated with that access varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and across the decades as well.
I am somewhat amazed at Andrew's point, I am confused by much of his comment. But I can assure Andrew that NSW parish registers commence in 1787, and that they have been accessed by parishioners from their commencement, including for the purpose of what we now know as "family history" but in my forebears time was known as 'genealogy' and 'pedigree charting'.
Cheers, JM.
-
JM - if this was Facebook, I'd give you a like! In fact, probably a couple!
This is my own " like" button. 👍👍
-
Not sure why you're saying 'only recently'. As I understand it, copies have been available to anyone who can pay the statutory fee since civil registration began in 1837.
Carol, I carefully said 'so easy for ...'. It used to be quite a hassle, as I'm sure you know. I suppose the change is a bit like our young generation spending half their lives plugged into Facebook or tablets?
The investment I referred to was the effort needed to transcribe and index everything, which must have cost, even if some of it was done in the sub-continent, I believe?
I am quite sure that back in the 1930s in NSW that a number of my family members along with many many others were all busy using their skills to transcribe the holdings of the NSW BDM to help prepare the indexes of the New South Wales BDM. I am also sure that across the other states of Australia and in New Zealand in that era, other teams of volunteers were using their skills to read the long hand entries in the registers and prepare the manual system to produce the indexes available long before the WWII, long before EDP systems, long before computerised spreadsheets.
Cheers, JM
-
JM - if this was Facebook, I'd give you a like! In fact, probably a couple!
This is my own " like" button. 👍👍
Thanks, Cheers, JM
-
Many people are still unwilling to reveal or discuss ancestral details, so probably don't like others ferreting even if they are legally permitted to.
Possibly, yours? You can't have it all ways up! Records are either public for all, or not!! You can't pick and choose. Either close them all down, from whenever - or allow access :-\ I don't see any problem at all. Perhaps the question might be - WHAT have you got to hide?
Sorry, BB, I'm trying to work out why you think I have a 'problem'. I have searched the available records like anyone else, and I don't care who looks at what. The OP (not me) raised the question. But I do know some people feel uncomfortable about discussing their ancestry, and others worry that there might be crime or illegitimacy. That's all.
-
... of course it was pen & ink in the early days, but it has been indexed in large volumes from the start and these volumes have, as far as I know, been available to the public since their inception. It's surely wrong to suggest what was once public should now be closed because of technological advances.
Steve, I don't think I have ever suggested that - though earlier posts in this thread have had misgivings. I have only said that some feel uncomfortable about others searching, and I understand why. And it would make no sense to delay indexing records which were needed for immediate use, obviously.
-
My apologies, Andrew, I obviously misunderstood your post. :-*
-
Carol, I carefully said 'so easy for ...'. It used to be quite a hassle, as I'm sure you know. I suppose the change is a bit like our young generation spending half their lives plugged into Facebook or tablets?
The investment I referred to was the effort needed to transcribe and index everything, which must have cost, even if some of it was done in the sub-continent, I believe?
The system of purchasing a certificate in England and Wales is basically the same as it has been since 1837; one writes to the Superintendent Registrar or the GRO with the details and makes the appropriate payment.
The differences today than those of the past are
1; it takes longer to receive the certificate.
2; access to physical copies of the GRO index is now restricted to a few locations.
3; Online access to a third party index of the GRO references is now available.
4; an unlawful restriction has been added to online applications of recent BMD events.
The investment in the GRO index comes from the UK taxpayer, the investment for the online third party index comes form the fund raising of the charity which hosts the data set.
Cheers
Guy
-
Perhaps I tried to be too concise earlier, so let me step back and try again. We are now well aware of Data Protection, and that may have made us circumspect about what we release about ourselves. I was trying to imagine what 19th-C people thought (if they did) about who might read their BMD records - and of course many of them could not themselves read. Even now, birth, marriage and death registers are actually seen by few people when the entries are made.
My presumption was that (if the thought arose) those 19th-C people assumed that the info went into the (church) register and only the officials ever saw it again. If they were told (and believed) that the whole world would one day be able to view them on demand, they might have had some reservations (women could keep stumm about who their child's father was, and often did). That was what I meant about levels of accessibility, even though the data was required, and 'public'.
From our standpoint as researchers, we must be grateful for later developments - but spare a thought for others who may feel that the original info was not provided on that basis.
-
I was trying to imagine what 19th-C people thought (if they did) about who might read their BMD records -
My presumption was that (if the thought arose) those 19th-C people assumed that the info went into the (church) register and only the officials ever saw it again. If they were told (and believed) that the whole world would one day be able to view them on demand, they might have had some reservations (women could keep stumm about who their child's father was, and often did).
I still think you are looking for something that possibly wasn't there.
At the time baptisms were through the church. Birth records were of a civil nature and at times ignored. So baptisms were public events.
Marriages came with Banns attached which is the placing of notices on the parish church door - once again for all to see and object to if they so desire.
Death is the most public of all events with headstones proclaiming a life.
As to your point about women keeping quiet , I would suggest that would be a very small portion , and - letting my imagination run away with me - only when there was a power imbalance. Most women knew the deprivation that would follow a birth that wasn't acknowledged and did everything they could to ensure that the child had protection of the authorities.
-
At the time baptisms were through the church. Birth records were of a civil nature and at times ignored. So baptisms were public events.
Marriages came with Banns attached which is the placing of notices on the parish church door - once again for all to see and object to if they so desire.
Death is the most public of all events with headstones proclaiming a life.
Quite so. But banns were very short-lived, and many poorer people could not afford headstones. We're discussing present-day availability, and whether just about anything 'public' should become available world-wide, perhaps without the consent of the participants.
I wasn't suggesting that single mothers should not register their child's birth, just leave the Name of Father blank. That certainly happened often enough.
-
I'm just thinking out loud here, but for what it's worth, I agree - I tend to think that in the early times of record keeping, say in Parish records, the people of the day probably didn't even think about what was written in Church Records and later, registers. Or who might see whatever records in the future.
I know from my collection of early certs, that many of them are marked with - X his or her mark, so they wouldn't have been able to check what was written - that's if they even had the opportunity!
I suspect that any family members involved in the case of entry re an illegitimate child , would have been more concerned with what Old Nellie across the road was going to tell big mouthed Maggie, and who else would she tell etc etc.
Nor would they know what would be written in the Kirk Session Records!
-
I have understood that the reason at least in England for the clergy to name the putative father on a baptism was so the parish could look to that person to provide the financial support of the child, so it was public knowledge available to the local community.
The system was different in 19th Century NSW as there was no formal declaration of an "Established Church", and the administration provided funding for the Female Orphanage and the Male Orphanage from their initial foundations. (Again, these institutions were established during the 'reign' of Governor Lachlan Macquarie, a Scotsman, governor of NSW from 1810 to 1821. It was also during the Macquarie era that the practice of transmitting quarterly returns of baptisms, burials and weddings celebrated by clergy of all denominations were ordered to be forwarded to the NSW Chaplains. (I should note that NSW at that time included all of what is now the Eastern states of Australia, and New Zealand, and the South Seas Islands .... so a huge territory from a geographical perspective, and with Missionaries from various denominations sailing from London and etc).... so not just the settled areas in and around the penal settlements at Sydney, Port Macquarie, or at Norfolk Island, or in Van Diemen's Land.... So in the early C of E parish registers at St Philips, Sydney NSW, there are records of bdm events that were celebrated by various priests and clerics of many denominations at various locations in the Antipodes.
Re Baptismal records .... when the masses in say Ireland were suffering the 19th century famines and people were seeking to Emigrate, there were many emigration plans, including some organised to bring single females from Ireland to Australia. Those lasses needed ID, and the form used most often was their local parish baptismal certificate, newly issued by the incumbent priests at their local parish and the details included on their Passenger Lists which are now being uploaded to various commercial websites. Similarly, when families were migrating under other Assisted passenger schemes in the later quarters of the 19th Century, they too used their baptismal certificates for ID, perhaps it was a more reliable document at the time, or perhaps better recognised, or easier to seek out from the local Reverend....
I will look up and Add a link to a couple of the digitised Gazette entries showing some general orders.... your 21st century eyes may need to be put back into their sockets with some of the wordings....
HERE I ADD
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/627934 The Sydney Gazette 24 February 1810.
Whereas His Excellency the Governor has seen with great Regret, the Immorality and Vice so prevalent …… the scandalous and pernicious Custom so generally and shamelessly adopted of Persons of different Sexes Cohabiting and living together unsanctioned by the legal ties of Matrimony …………… and whereas such Practices are a Scandall to Religion, to Decency and to all Good Government; And whereas also frequent Applications have been made on the Part of Divers Women to the Court of Civil Jurisdiction ……..
So, you need to ask yourself
a) How did anyone in 1810 and earlier in Sydney Town, NSW, know that these Persons of different Sexes were living together unsanctioned by Matrimony unless someone was checking the parish registers
b) And so the civil administration were basically trying to avoid civil claims re Intestate estates and fatherless children seeking a benefit from such an estate
c) And what about those convicted persons who had married back in Britain…..
So, in respect of c) those marriages were effectively ended with the sentence of transportation beyond the seas but in respect of a) the parish registers were available for viewing, in a similar way to the present. You asked permission to view, and you waited until permission was granted, and you paid the fee asked for by the clergy.
There have been many threads about bigamy v re-marriage when transported beyond the seas but here is a starting point, so there were many reasons for accessing the parish records even at the time they were being made, and within the lifetime of the person about whom they were made....
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=699561.msg5427556#msg5427556
Cheers JM
-
Perhaps I tried to be too concise earlier, so let me step back and try again. We are now well aware of Data Protection, and that may have made us circumspect about what we release about ourselves. I was trying to imagine what 19th-C people thought (if they did) about who might read their BMD records - and of course many of them could not themselves read. Even now, birth, marriage and death registers are actually seen by few people when the entries are made.
I think you are being confused by the myth that our ancestors were not literate, studies have shown that literacy levels in the 19th century were as good if not better than modern standards and even as far back as the 17th century there were good levels of literacy amongst the working classes.
There is even evidence to show that the peasants’ revolt of 1381 was organised by way of the written word.
My presumption was that (if the thought arose) those 19th-C people assumed that the info went into the (church) register and only the officials ever saw it again. If they were told (and believed) that the whole world would one day be able to view them on demand, they might have had some reservations (women could keep stumm about who their child's father was, and often did). That was what I meant about levels of accessibility, even though the data was required, and 'public'.
From our standpoint as researchers, we must be grateful for later developments - but spare a thought for others who may feel that the original info was not provided on that basis.
The public (in England & Wales) have been aware that churches kept registers of BMDs since their inception in 1538 and from at least 1644 these records of Baptisms (& births), Marriages, and Burials (& deaths) have been available to all to inspect This has never been a secret.
The 1644 ordinance states-
“...and that said book shall be showed, by such as keep the same, to all persons reasonably desiring to search for the birth, baptizing, marriage, or burial of any person therein registered, and to take a copy or procure a certificate thereof.”
Marriages in England & Wales are not legal unless open to public inspection.
What people fail to realise these days which our ancestors understood is it is secrets that cause harm not knowledge.
Our ancestors were not ashamed to be bastards it was open knowledge. The only problem was when a bastard child became a drain on public resources, in the same way as a large family on benefits today can become a drain on public resources and are becoming stigmatised.
Cheers
Guy
-
I'm just thinking out loud here, but for what it's worth, I agree - I tend to think that in the early times of record keeping, say in Parish records, the people of the day probably didn't even think about what was written in Church Records and later, registers. Or who might see whatever records in the future.
I know from my collection of early certs, that many of them are marked with - X his or her mark, so they wouldn't have been able to check what was written - that's if they even had the opportunity!
I suspect that any family members involved in the case of entry re an illegitimate child , would have been more concerned with what Old Nellie across the road was going to tell big mouthed Maggie, and who else would she tell etc etc.
Nor would they know what would be written in the Kirk Session Records!
Never assume that a mark on a register means a person could not read or write.
Very often it can be shown that those very people who made a mark on a marriage register were writing fluently on other documents before or after if a search is made.
Many people used marks in their day to day lives to mark their work. Tradesmen for example would add a mark (not necessarily an x) to the work they had done so they could be paid for it.
I have mentioned before in the 1960s I witnessed a group of teenage lads who were all highly literate and educated at a good Scottish Academy sign a RAF form with an x as their Commanding Officer to them to make their mark on the form, only a very few actually signed their names.
When living in an authoritarian environment most people do as they are told rather than doing what they can do.
If told to sign their name they will sign their name if told to make their mark they will make their mark.
Cheers
Guy
-
To follow majms point about baptismal records in Ireland being needed - it is my understanding that the Baptismal/Parish records were needed to be able to apply for a State Pension
-
Sorry everyone, by the time I added my info that I looked up re the 1810 co-habitation scandals of NSW, a number of newer posts were added. So, I am simply posting here to show where everyone had got up to before my additional material had been posted.
In particular I had found an RChat thread that included some info from Guy in a reply. :)
Cheers, JM
-
Even in the 20th Century, and until about the late 1980s, in NSW it was still acceptable to use a baptismal certificate for proof of name and age and place of birth. I know, because I regularly used mine for that very purpose. I am a baby boomer, born shortly after WWII ceased. I know which document I used when gaining my NSW drivers licence on my 17th birthday in the 1960s. I know which document I used when marrying in the 1970s. I know which documents (baptism and marriage as per parish register) I used when seeking a Passport to travel with my husband overseas.
Of course, there was a huge scandal starting in about 1988, when a Financial Wiz by name of Christopher Skase (he died August 2001) ripped off many many Australians for their life savings and managed to escape Australia using his passport. The government brought in a more secure system of checking ID and the need to spend big pennies on confidential civil birth and marriage certificates became the norm. But until then, parish records were as respected as the civil registrations. It is just that civil registrations are more easily recognised and checkable by public servants who handle the admin of the passport issuing system.
Cheers, JM
-
I have a copy of a baptism certificate sent to England from the parish of Arbory, Isle of Man in 1937. The covering note mentions that it was "required for claiming an Old Age Pension". The recipient was born before civil registration started on the island so their birth was not registered by any civil authority.
Blue
-
I think you are being confused by the myth that our ancestors were not literate, studies have shown that literacy levels in the 19th century were as good if not better than modern standards and even as far back as the 17th century there were good levels of literacy amongst the working classes.
There is even evidence to show that the peasants’ revolt of 1381 was organised by way of the written word.
Guy, I can't help feeling that you may be in denial of some sort. Please consult Gregory Clark 2008 for an analysis of historical English literacy rates. He claims they rose fairly steadily from a plateau of about 60% before 1800 to approaching 99% today, men being more literate than women, not surprisingly. There may well be surprising occurrences of literacy in history, but I won't accept that there has been any regression. As others have posted, it is quite likely that an X mark on a certificate may be misleading, however.
-
If by literacy you mean the ability to write a coherent English sentence, free of spelling and punctuation errors, then I am in complete agreement with Guy! ;D
Some of the posts on RootsChat have to be seen to be believed!
And they are the ones I ignore! ::)
-
If by literacy you mean the ability to write a coherent English sentence, free of spelling and punctuation errors, then I am in complete agreement with Guy! ;D Some of the posts on RootsChat have to be seen to be believed!
And they are the ones I ignore! ::)
lol. Don't know what G Clark's criteria were.
-
If by literacy you mean the ability to write a coherent English sentence, free of spelling and punctuation errors, then I am in complete agreement with Guy! ;D
Some of the posts on RootsChat have to be seen to be believed!
And they are the ones I ignore! ::)
Yes, and I am sure I will not be the only one to support KG's support.
Plenty of evidence of literacy in NSW among those transported to the colony. If asked to "place your mark here" when I was a teenager, I would certainly have squiggled rather than signed my name. When asked to "initial" here I would still make my "mark" . If asked to 'sign here' then I would use my normal signature, unless it was a very formal document, when I would likely look up and say "usual signature" or do you want full signature with all my given names included in it....
Cheers, JM
-
Will someone please give me a clue - who is Gregory Clark? ::) ::) Mr G has given me a few alternatives, but none of them seem to fit the criteria of "historical English literacy rates" :-\
-
Hi B-Bee, I think the reference is to http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/research.html but like you, Mr Google is not exactly forthcoming in assisting the statement made as per quote that follows. On a bright and cheerful note : It is 2315 hours here in NSW, Monday evening. I will awaken tomorrow to the first day of our Summer.
Cheers, JM
Guy, I can't help feeling that you may be in denial of some sort. Please consult Gregory Clark 2008 for an analysis of historical English literacy rates. He claims they rose fairly steadily from a plateau of about 60% before 1800 to approaching 99% today, men being more literate than women, not surprisingly. There may well be surprising occurrences of literacy in history, but I won't accept that there has been any regression. As others have posted, it is quite likely that an X mark on a certificate may be misleading, however.
-
Apparently the 1911 census was filled in by the householders rather than the enumerators, I dont know if that happened in every household but if so then it does appear people were more literate back then than we give them credit for. I have ancestors who put their mark but signed in other documents. My ancestor signed her name when she wed in 1856 but gave her mark in some of her children's birth certs. I find Guy's posts very interesting, and he knows what he is talking about, having spent decades doing genealogy.
What I do hate is people who point out the odd spelling or grammar error in others posts, as if their typing is so perfect. Sometimes you may accidentally hit the next key on the keyboard without realising etc.
-
Thanks majm - I did eventually suss out who he was - the author of A Farewell to Alms - a Scotsman, now living in America. :)
Added: before someone takes offence. Mr Clark was educated at Cambridge :)
-
Hi B-Bee, I think the reference is to http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/research.html but like you, Mr Google is not exactly forthcoming in assisting the statement made as per quote that follows.
Cheers, JM
I was looking at http://ourworldindata.org/data/education-knowledge/literacy/ . Andrew
-
If by literacy you mean the ability to write a coherent English sentence, free of spelling and punctuation errors, then I am in complete agreement with Guy! ;D Some of the posts on RootsChat have to be seen to be believed!
And they are the ones I ignore! ::)
lol. Don't know what G Clark's criteria were.
It seems to me he laid a lot of weight on the figures supplied by Clarke (2000) who used the following works
Sources: 1750s-1920s, Schofield (1973), men and women who sign marriage resisters. The north, 1630s-1740s, Houston (1982), witnesses who sign court depositions. Norwich Diocese, 1580s-1690s, Cressy (1977), witnesses who sign ecclesiastical court declarations.
In other words the figures were deduced by looking at signatures, or lack of on official sources where the subject was possibly told to make his/her mark.
That does not mean the figures are inaccurate but it does not give a full picture of literacy of the times
Cheers
Guy
-
Just a couple of points I would like to make -
1. My dad said that both of his grannies could neither read nor write. During my family research I have found this to be almost correct. One granny could write her name which I have proof of on her marriage/childrens birth certificates. She died in 1938.
The other one has no signature only an X on all documentation. She died in 1945.
2. Lets not be too harsh on others here about their spelling or grammar. Obviously it is easy to hit the wrong key or they may have a problem such as dyslexia.
Come on folks lets ease up on each other - that's not what we are about.
Dorrie (Doris)
-
Apparently the 1911 census was filled in by the householders rather than the enumerators, I dont know if that happened in every household but if so then it does appear people were more literate back then than we give them credit for.
All the census forms were completed by the householders*. Unfortunately those from pre-1911 censuses were destroyed, and only the enumerators' books were retained. These contain transcriptions of the original forms, so are a secondary source, not primary.
* Or by someone who assisted them if they were not able to write.
-
Dm Tomo the op raises a valid point and it is interesting to read the various opinions cast out by the audience, but that original point is really to do with what we the 'public' actually receive in exchange for having govts control our lives.
Of course ALL records should be openly available not subjected to the whims of various persons with selective purposes.
You paid for those records with your taxes and to have them offered at a price is tantamont to double billing. Would you pay for your tv license twice?
For us who can't access the record halls or such as we live far away the price and efforts demanded of us to enable the purpose we require such records to be available is extortionate.
Perhaps it would be of more sense to remember that the church and govt belongs to us and not we to them - and thus they should do our bidding in an open manner.
Free BMD and its partner sites exemplifies the best of purposes unlike so many of the moneygrabbing gen sites.
But that's just my opinion and my 2 cents worth!
Keep at it DM Tomo - never admit you are not free.
-
Dm Tomo the op raises a valid point and it is interesting to read the various opinions cast out by the audience, but that original point is really to do with what we the 'public' actually receive in exchange for having govts control our lives.
Of course ALL records should be openly available not subjected to the whims of various persons with selective purposes.
Which is what happens here in the UK!
Public Records are archived in designated archives and the public have a right to inspect them.
You paid for those records with your taxes and to have them offered at a price is tantamont to double billing. Would you pay for your tv license twice?
This is where you go wrong in your assumptions.
Taxes pay to create the records and to archive the records. The public who wish to view the records are charged a fee in order to view the records.
That fee covers the cost of the viewing facilities plus the costs to staff the facilites and the costs involved in retrieving the records from and returning the records to the storage.
Why should the taxpayer pay for such costs?
For us who can't access the record halls or such as we live far away the price and efforts demanded of us to enable the purpose we require such records to be available is extortionate.
Is it, think how much it would cost you to visit the archive.
Instead in many cases it is possible to view the records in your home.
This facility requires either archive staff copying the original record each time a copy is required. This has costs not only time & money but materials and possibly damage to the original record as well.
An alternative is to allow a third party to digitise the record and make that available by other means such as online.
This also has a number of costs but lessens the damage to the original record.
However digitising is not cheap and the costs involved need to be covered.
Perhaps it would be of more sense to remember that the church and govt belongs to us and not we to them - and thus they should do our bidding in an open manner.
The church and the government are different entities.
The Church of England is a privately funded body which compiles its own records some of which are publically accessible by law, these are not public records.
In a similar way other churches compile their own records some of which are accessible to the public some are not.
Free BMD and its partner sites exemplifies the best of purposes unlike so many of the moneygrabbing gen sites.
But that's just my opinion and my 2 cents worth!
Keep at it DM Tomo - never admit you are not free.
FreeBMD and its partner sites are charities funded by the public and can only afford to supply records free of charge because the public donate money to them to allow them to compile and host the records; I believe they have also benefited from a grant or grants from the Government in the past.
The “moneygrabbing gen sites” as you call them are commercial sites who have to pay their own costs and in most cases pay licence fees to host records held by government archives such as the GRO.
For example census records are licenced to the various commercial sites, this costs the companies money which has to be found somewhere.
The public basically have a choice of travelling to the archive and viewing the record free of any additional charges, paying more taxes to enable the archives to view digitised copies of the records in their own homes, or paying a commercial company a fee to enable them to view copies of the records at home.
Nothing is free but we do have a choice of who we pay and how much we pay.
Cheers
Guy
-
Absolutely right, Guy. It's amazing what some people expect to get for nothing - which amounts to expecting others to provide their services for nothing (or very little).
And Rodc complains at 'govts controlling our lives'. There will be times when he may be grateful for govts controlling others' lives - when they are a public nuisance, for example.
-
Just a couple of points I would like to make -
1. My dad said that both of his grannies could neither read nor write. During my family research I have found this to be almost correct. One granny could write her name which I have proof of on her marriage/childrens birth certificates. She died in 1938.
The other one has no signature only an X on all documentation. She died in 1945.
Dorrie (Doris)
My grandmother 1899-1969 could sign her name perfectly well. However she could not read or write, probably dyslexic. Her family's 1911 census entry looks like it was written by a 6 year-old. By contrast my other grandmother had been a pupil teacher, was an excellent pianist and singer, and could speak a little French. (She always told us she learned this from the French fishermen in Ramsgate - oh là là ;D )
They both came from the same very humble backgrounds.
Pat
-
You can see the Parochial Fees Table for searches in Church Registers at https://www.churchofengland.org/weddings-baptisms-funerals/fees.aspx
Stan
This reply may help a new query posted today.
-
You paid for those records with your taxes and to have them offered at a price is tantamont to double billing. Would you pay for your tv license twice?
This is where you go wrong in your assumptions.
Taxes pay to create the records and to archive the records. The public who wish to view the records are charged a fee in order to view the records.
That fee covers the cost of the viewing facilities plus the costs to staff the facilites and the costs involved in retrieving the records from and returning the records to the storage.
Why should the taxpayer pay for such costs?
By law, a fee can not be charged for viewing marriage registers still held by the incumbent. However, you may find it difficult to get the incumbent to obey the law.
You can see the Parochial Fees Table for searches in Church Registers at https://www.churchofengland.org/weddings-baptisms-funerals/fees.aspx
Stan
This reply may help a new query posted today.
The above are the fees if the incumbent performs the search, not if a member of the public performs the search himself.
-
By law, a fee can not be charged for viewing marriage registers still held by the incumbent. However, you may find it difficult to get the incumbent to obey the law.
The above are the fees if the incumbent performs the search, not if a member of the public performs the search himself.
What makes you assume that a fee can not be charged for viewing marriage registers still held by the incumbent?
Perhaps you can quote the specific Act that makes that law as I would be very interested to see it.
I wonder if you are confusing searches in the marriage register with the laws on Simony, which forbid the charging of fees for a sacrament?
It has certainly since 1836 been enshrined in law that the public have to pay to make searches in marriage registers.
The 1836 Act puts it this way-
XXXV. And be it enacted, That every Rector, Vicar, or Curate, and every Registrar, Registering Officer, and Secretary, who shall have the keeping for the Time being of any Register Book of Births, Deaths, or Marriages, shall at all reasonable Times allow Searches to be made of any Register Book in his keeping, and shall give a Copy certified under his Hand of any Entry or Entries in the same, on Payment of the Fee herein-after mentioned ; (that is to say,) for every Search extending over a Period not more than One Year the Sum of One Shilling, and Sixpence additional for every additional Year, and the Sum of Two Shillings and Sixpence for every single Certificate."
Note it states 'allow Searches to be made' rather 'will make searches', that shows that the public are entitled to search the registers on payment of a fee.
The fee was part of the living, income the incumbent used to live on as the Church did not pay wages.
Cheers
Guy