Parish Registers

[newburychap]

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.

[DudleyWinchurch]

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?

[joanne56]

We need a good lawyer methinks...

Joanne

[joanne56]

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

[Lesanne]

    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.

[newburychap]

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).

[DudleyWinchurch]

Hi Newburychap,

Thanks for the detailed clarification.  Sorry, I hadn't seen it earlier but didn't get any notification of your response.

[Lesanne]

  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. 
Lesanne.

[newburychap]

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. 
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.