RE: Inaccurate information supplied
Dear Researcher
I
am sorry that you were dissatisfied with the information supplied in
response to your research request, and which you now believe to be
inaccurate. On the basis of the details you supplied I have conducted an
extensive investigation, and I am pleased to say that I have identified
the individual responsible. Unfortunately, I was not able to speak to
the gentleman in question since he is no longer with us. In fact, it
appears that he died about 150 years ago and to the best of my knowledge
did not leave a diary or other personal papers that might shed some
light on his thinking on this matter.
In
the absence of any documentary evidence, I therefore can only guess
that he spelled your great-great-grandfather's surname incorrectly in
the marriage register because your great-great-grandfather, who made his
mark (X) instead of signing, did not spot the error at the time.
You
also had concerns regarding his baptism entry, which our researcher
also found for you. I can assure you that while we would not use this
word in an official document today, it was common parlance at that time
and was often included in the baptism entries of children born to unwed
mothers. It was in no way intended as a comment on your
great-great-grandfather's character.
I
hope that this clarifies matters to your satisfaction, and that you
will continue to use our paid research service, or visit us in person to
view our records for yourself.
Respectfully yours,
Cat A Logger
Archivist
RE: RE: Inaccurate information supplied
Dear Researcher
We
are always interested in the views of users of our archives, including
comments such as those in your first communication, pointing out the
quirks and and even inaccuracies in our original records. However, I
must apologise for omitting to explain in my response to you that errors
of fact, or even mis-statements, in the records can be interesting and
significant in themselves. While I have some sympathy with your desire
for accuracy, making any alterations to a documents would compromise the
integrity of the record. As responsible custodians of our collections,
and in line with best archival practice, we are unable to allow such
alterations under any circumstances.
I
fear that I may therefore have unwittingly contributed to the
misunderstanding which led to your ejection from the record office
earlier this week. As I explained in the previous paragraph, your
attempt to write in one of our original volumes was in contravention of
our Rules for Readers, a copy of which is included and which you should
find helpful, at least when your period of suspension expires and you
are re-admitted to the reading room. I am afraid that your breach of the
rules is in no way mitigated by the fact that you went to the trouble
and expense of acquiring an authentic quill pen and a bottle of iron
gall ink, appropriate to the period.
However,
at your request I have passed your observations on to our senior
conservator. She is not available for comment at the moment, but we hope
to be able to coax her down from the top of the repository shelving
very soon, and the doctor expects the uncontrollable shaking to
subside in a day or two.
Respectfully yours,
Cat A Logger
Archivist
Comments
Post a Comment