[Opengenalliance] Update from Cornwall

[Ben Laurie]

On 19 January 2013 15:49, Guy Etchells <guy.etchells at virgin.net> wrote:
> On 19/01/2013 12:04, Alexandra Eveleigh wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> GRO are right about one thing though - this is indeed an old chestnut, as
>> any local archivist will sigh and tell you (although the confusion does
>> usually focus on access and copying of the registers themselves, not the
>> local indexes). The argument has been ongoing for at least 30 years, to my
>> knowledge. Every so often, GRO gets hot under the collar about it, or a
>> local Diocesan archivist attempts to get some kind of clarity. The issue was
>> last discussed on the UK archivists listserv in late 2011, and the final
>> message on the thread (this time last year) was from TNA saying they had
>> been looking into the legal aspects and promising imminent advice on the
>> subject. I haven't seen anything (and can't immediately find anything on
>> TNA's website) but I'm no longer working at a Diocesan Record Office, so may
>> have missed it. But if you are looking into this too, it might be worth
>> contacting the relevant people at TNA.
>>
>> The listserv's new interface is confusing me this morning and I cannot
>> work out how to link to a whole thread - but if you go to
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=ARCHIVES-NRA and search for
>> 'marriage registers' you will find all the relevant messages.
>>
>> Alexandra
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com
>> <mailto:fjmd1a at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Michael,
>>
>>     A legal observation: the relevant section of the Marriage Act 1949
>>     is gives members of the public a right to certified copies of
>>     entries in the index. What it does not do is prevent copies being
>>     taken of the index or entries in it for other purposes or in other
>>     ways. That means that this particular provision does not stop the
>>     Registration Office giving you what you want.
>>
>>     It sounds to me like this is something that the OGA could take up
>>     at a higher level and if law is quoted to them by officials have
>>     ORG's legal advisors read, advise on and (if necessary) talk to
>>     the officials.
>>
>>     Francis
>>
>>     2013/1/18 Michael J McCormick <michaeljmcc at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:michaeljmcc at gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>         Hello folks
>>
>>         We now have over 2.3 million records online, having just
>>         transcribed our one millionth CoE baptism. Although we
>>         remained targeted on our primary aim of transcribing the
>>         parish registers, we are also looking for other sources of
>>         data useful to Cornish family historians. Currently we are
>>         photographing and transcribing the 19th century prison
>>         registers for Cornwall.
>>
>>         For the last six months I have been exchanging emails with the
>>         Registration Office in Cornwall, trying to persuade them to
>>         let us photograph and transcribing the indices to the 19th
>>         century local BMD registers. The indexes, not the registers.
>>         Yesterday they said no.
>>
>>         They quoted from the Policy Dept of the GRO as follows:
>>
>>         “This query is linked to a wider issue relating to access to
>>         records by family history societies, Ancestry, Find my past
>>         etc. We are still seeking a resolution to this query and while
>>         I am unable to provide a definitive answer at present, I will
>>         advise you as soon as I am aware of the outcome.
>>         In the interim, you may wish to advise the parish clerks that
>>         the public may only have access to the indices in the manner
>>         provided for by statue, i.e. in accordance with s.64 of the
>>         Marriage Act 1949, where you will note that there is no
>>         provision to transcribe or photograph the indexes, see link below.
>>         http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/76/section/64“
>>
>>         Does anyone know what the policy is?
>>
>>         Any helpful suggestions on how we might proceed?
>>
>>         Rgds
>>
>>         Michael
>>         TfC
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Opengenalliance mailing list
>>         Opengenalliance at lists.openrightsgroup.org
>>         <mailto:Opengenalliance at lists.openrightsgroup.org>
>>
>>         http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/opengenalliance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     --     Francis Davey
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Opengenalliance mailing list
>>     Opengenalliance at lists.openrightsgroup.org
>>     <mailto:Opengenalliance at lists.openrightsgroup.org>
>>     http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/opengenalliance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opengenalliance mailing list
>> Opengenalliance at lists.openrightsgroup.org
>> http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/opengenalliance
>
> The above is simply the GRO trying to create a monopoly of the indexes.
>
> The GRO index (or as it used to be called the St Catherine's marriage Index)
> used to be for sale on microfiche and microfilm for many years.
> When the GRO (illegally) removed public access to the index by closing the
> FRC they "replaced" access by allowing the public to view it at a few
> locations across the country.

You say this was illegal - how so? Happy to sue :-)

> At the same time or slightly before, they withdrew the microfiche/film
> versions of the index which had been on sale to organisations for many
> decades.
> Cheers
> Guy
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opengenalliance mailing list
> Opengenalliance at lists.openrightsgroup.org
> http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/opengenalliance