> Michael Walsby wrote: >> 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 > Even £10 a day is not unreasonable. When it costs me £5 to go to the cinema or closer to this topic, £80.00 in fuel to drive to the archive, £10.00 for a 8 hour day's access is reasonable. Whether the records are public or private they cost money to store and to access and we should not be afraid to recognise that or to pay our dues to our community and hobby. Bob