GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-08 > 1029301272


From: Jonas Kuschner <>
Subject: Re: Royal Descents: England vs. Continental Europe
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:01:12 +0200
References: <9bb1d741.0208111901.45e6dc32@posting.google.com> <3D577BC2.1050501@noaddress.com> <3D580541.25ADA788@ntlworld.com> <3D58DE73.3080605@noaddress.com> <3D594D50.E18E0CC2@ntlworld.com> <3D5963AF.2050609@noaddress.com> <3D598A09.6F0B85F3@ntlworld.com> <3D59E093.6070308@noaddress.com>


Jonas Kuschner wrote:
>
> OK, I didn't realize that you meant the records from after 1937, and I'm
> not familiar with the English system. I would like to visit the FRC at
> some point, but I am more interested in Scotland than in England. (I
> have once ordered a couple of certified copies through the Scots Origins
> site.) I look at this from a Swedish perspective - in Sweden the church
> was in fact the official record-keeper until 1990, when, as part of the
> state-church separation process, this obligation was turned over to the
> local taxation authorities.
>
> What records are considered to be in the public domain? Is there a point
> in time (50 or 70 or 100 years) when records become public? I notice
> from the Society of Genealogists website that you referred me to that
> most or all of the older records are microfilmed. As the SoG has copies
> I suppose it is possible for anyone else to buy a copy as well.
>
> Jonas
>

I just saw Adrian Channing's correction: 1937 was supposed to be 1837.
(For some reason my newsreader has broken this thread into two separate
parts.)

Aren't the Mormons interested in microfilming these post-1837 records?
That's how the the filming of most Swedish records were payed for.

Jonas






This thread: