rbccstrr@aol.co.uk wrote: > I think Bob has hit on the central point...free public access... > not to the buildings, but to the records themselves. These are > public records. The public owns them, the archives conserve them > and make them accessible. Actually the public doesn't own them. That is an urban myth, I'm afraid. They belong to the diocese who allows access to them and they date from a time when Church and State went hand in hand, rather than be two very separate entities as they are today. They are public accessible records rather than public records. The diocese could have their own record office and keep it closed. That the diocese r3ecord office is also the county record office is a bonus for family historians and genealogists. They could nevertheless insist that the registers should not be made available to the public. As it is, those registers not placed in the diocese archive but remain with the incumbent of the church can be searched for a fee. Some incumbents charge that fee, some charge a partial fee, some don't charge at all. The diocese could extend that and insist that anyone wishing to view those registers held at the diocese record office should pay the same fee. > There are conservation as well as cost > issues related to photocopies which makes a reasonable charge > proper. Camera use spares this layer of wear and tear on the > records, as well as saving staff time and equipment. [...] The camera license fee is small, but as a policy, it > does seem to contravene the spirit of the free access rule without > any conservation or administrative or cost reason to justify it. You've contradicted yourself there. You say, correctly, that using a camera reduces the wear and tear on the documents. Researchers also tend to wear gloves which the staff don't when making the copies. Then you say that a camera permit appears to contravene the spirit of free access without a justifiable reason, yet you've already highlighted the fact that using a camera helps conserve the documents, as well as saving the staff costs (freeing them to concentrate on other aspects of their jobs, inc conservation) and wear and tear on equipment. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

The requirement to buy a licence to use a camera at the record office has one other bonus: a means of keeping track on who's taking pictures of which documents. It can help with copyright issues. And it could help defray the costs of conservation. Not many record offices/ archives/ local studies etc actually own the documents in their care: anything from the Church of England is owned by the bishop/church, and its presence in the record office is a matter of care not ownership. Many businesses have put their records into the safekeeping of a record office, but they still retain ownership. Some organisations require that a letter of permission be obtained from them before a researcher may access records deposited in the RO. None of these kinds of material is "freely available to the public" and they are certainly not owned "by the public". Church records still retained by the parish church must be kept in "suitable conditions"; I believe each diocese has the right to inspect the room where the pcc has decided they will store their records, and if it isn't up to scratch to demand that it be made so. A parish's retention of their records allows them to charge the standard fee for a search, to cover the inconvenience to them of allowing a researcher onto their premises and providing a member of staff to oversee them. Insurance policies would be null and void if staff member was not present (at all times). Oh, yes, the fees are set by Synod, not by the vicar on a whim! As to the question of document handling, it is useful that members of the public not used to handling fragile paper or parchment etc be told to wear gloves: that prevents their mucky greasey finger marks from being transferred to the paper - which works in their favour as some documents are incredibly mucky, so the gloves get dirty not their hands! However, I have to say that handling documents frequently enables one to judge more easily the state of the material. Having helped to flatten, clean and reference several thousand old Wills (and still counting) I can say that whilst I started off with gloves, I now work bare handed, though hands do need washing before eating a sandwich (and after of course!). One can be more gentle without gloves, but only with a great deal of practice - even once a month is insufficient, needs to be weekly or even daily. So to be on the safe side conservators ask that when the public handle documents they wear gloves - it emphasises the need for extreme care. AND always use a recommended document rest - cushions, foam etc, and the right kind of weights if necessary. Not sure taking pictures actually helps care of the document, but having attempted to film my grandfather's file at TNA with my digital camera, I'm about to write for a quote for them to scan it for me, my own results were unsatisfactory. Whether with a licence or for free, taking pictures of documents is a very skilled art, and I don't have that skill. JK

> rbccstrr@aol.co.uk wrote: >> I think Bob has hit on the central point...free public access... >> not to the buildings, but to the records themselves. These are >> public records. The public owns them, the archives conserve them >> and make them accessible -> Charani wrote : > Actually the public doesn't own them. That is an urban myth, I'm > afraid. They belong to the diocese who allows access to them and they > date from a time when Church and State went hand in hand, rather than > be two very separate entities as they are today. But Anglican parish registers & wills are only part of the archives. What about all the rest - e.g. Quarter sessions documents, Manorial records, Nonconformist records, Local Authority records (to which we have a legal democratic right to access) Commercial records, Academic researches, Material depostied by families because they contain information of wider interest, etc. And not forgetting material deposited by genealogists to help fellow genealogists in the future (to which we all owe a debt). So £2 a day is not excessive, but once a principle is breached, how soon before it rises to, say, £10 a day ? Concerning Anglican church records, I can see the argument concerning access to their modern records kept at a church, but going back before, say, 1837, our ancestors had no choice but to marry in church (unless they were Quakers or Jews) or to accept the church's authority over wills, to pay church rates, etc. Any claim that these are not effectively "public" records should be strongly resisted. Michael Walsby