Not really ;-) I can see Bob’s reasoning entirely, that there may be no case also to add the title “Duchess of York” (though we seem to have established that she was the Duchess of York and not the Duchess of York and Albany). I’d probably not have added the additional title if creating this from scratch. However, if the AAP isn’t actually wrong under RDA, I believe the ageing post-test RDA guidelines would have us not change an AAP. On reflection I might have stuck my neck out and removed the additional title it, but I don’t object to the AAP as it is.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hostage, John
Sent: 23 January 2018 19:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs for princesses

 

I would be curious if the British Library had any more to add to this discussion.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jessica Janecki <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 14:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs for princesses

 

Bob,

 

Thank you for taking the time to write out this walk-through. Unfortunately, before I received this message, another kind person emailed me off-list with a similar walk-through of RDA which lead to the conclusion to keep the AAP as-is. 3 other people also told me the AAP was probably fine in its existing state, so I went ahead and updated the record to RDA, leaving the AAP as it was.

 

Ryan,

 

To add to the confusion, the book I had in hand to catalog (published in 1792, so contemporary with our Duchess) referred to Frederica Charlotte exclusively as “Duchess of York” (not Duchess of York and Albany). I actually had to go hunting around to find out who the Duchess of York was at the time.

 

Jessica

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Finnerty, Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 1:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs for princesses

 

Hi Bob,

 

Your reasoning looks sound to me. To give further evidence that the existing AAP needs to be updated, her husband’s title was not simply “Duke of York,” it was “Duke of York and Albany.” These were not two separate individual titles held by one person, but a single combined title. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York_and_Albany for more information. If we still wanted to include Duchess in her AAP, it would correctly be “Duchess of York and Albany” (but given your explanation below, it doesn’t look warranted).

 

Ryan J. Finnerty | Head, Database and Authorities Management & NACO Coordinator 

UC San Diego Library | 9500 Gilman Drive | La Jolla, CA 92093 | MC 0175-K

T: 858.822.3138 | [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs for princesses

 

Jessica,

 

Here’s how to walk through the RDA instructions for creation of an authorized access point for a royal person (in which I raise a couple of questions about this particular evaluation):

 

The RDA instruction for recording the preferred name of a royal person is 9.2.2.20, which is a sort of appendage to 9.2.2.18, names that contain neither a surname nor a title of nobility. According to the 670 in the authority record citing Dictionary of National Biography, this person has no surname, only forenames: “Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina”. Following 9.2.2.20 (which refers to 9.2.2.18) we simply record the name, beginning with the part listed first in reference sources (“Frederica”)

 

Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina

 

9.4.1.4.3 gives us instructions for how to form the title for children of royal persons (e.g. princesses): “record the title in a language preferred by the agency”. According to DNB her title is “Princess of Prussia”. I would therefore suppose that the title should be recorded, under RDA:

 

Princess of Prussia

 

9.4.1.4.3 goes on to cases where the title does not include a territorial designation; in such cases we are to follow the title with another title associated with the name: “Duchess of York”—so if she hadn’t had a territorial designation,  the would be recorded, according to RDA:

 

Princess, Duchess of York

 

But this is not the case. Since on the evidence recorded in the authority record her royal title does have a territorial designation (of Prussia), I would think it doesn’t actually matter whether she has the title “Duchess of York” or not, her 9.4.1.4.3 title is

 

Princess of Prussia

 

Quibbling just a bit, I also note that there is no explicit evidence in the princess’s authority record for the title “Duchess of York”—the original cataloger appears to have been extrapolating it from the fact that she’s married to the Duke of York. I’d personally prefer a little more explicit evidence for the title, but I can see where the cataloger got it. But in any case, I assume she didn’t lose her title Princess of Prussia when she became Mrs. Duke of York.

 

That said, 9.2.2.20 tells us how to choose the preferred name, and 9.4.1.4.3 tells us how to record the title,  but neither tells us how to create the authorized access point. For that we go to 9.19.1.1—which says to start with the preferred name, for which there is no question:

 

100 0_  Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina

 

Then 9.19.1.2.1 tells us to include a title of royalty (as we formulated it in 9.4.1.4) “even if it is not needed to distinguish access points representing different persons with the same name.”

 

100 0_ Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina, $c Princess of Prussia

 

We could stop there, but following the LC-PCC PS for 9.19.1.3, we add the dates of birth and death, since we know them, even though they’re not needed to distinguish this persons AAP from that of another:

 

100 0_ Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina, $c Princess of Prussia, $d 1767-1820

 

I believe I’ve walked through the instructions correctly, step by step, but in doing so I’ve come up with a different answer from the established form of the AAP. Comments, anyone? Unless I’ve missed an instruction or policy statement somewhere, I think “Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina, $c Princess of Prussia, $d 1767-1820” is the correct RDA form and the 100 should have been changed to that form when the cataloger followed the 667 instruction to evaluate the heading. But I freely admit that I could have gone wrong somewhere and would be interested in seeing what others have to say.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 7:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NARs for princesses

 

Hi everyone,

 

I understand that the 667 was added as a batch to all headings that met certain criteria and therefore was added to many potentially valid RDA headings.

 

I was merely asking for help in understanding the RDA rules regarding royal titles so that I could evaluate this particular heading.

 

Jessica

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs for princesses

 

That 667 field was added to any NAR with a 100 $c, that wasn’t on a list of valid RDA qualifiers that a Task Group I participated in could agree in fairly short order.  An awful lot of perfectly good RDA qualifiers weren’t on that list – if anyone had the slightest doubt about a qualifier, or thought the facts might need looking at again, it was left off. Some qualifiers just need punctuation changing. Much of this was due to be done in the now mythical Phase 3B LC/NAF RDA conversion. I agree the current example is probably fine.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hostage, John
Sent: 22 January 2018 20:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs for princesses

 

That 667 field was added to any authority record with a subfield $c in the 100. It doesn't necessarily mean that the heading is not a valid RDA heading.

 

The examples in 9.4 are used as additions to the preferred name. See 9.19.1.2.1.  The heading for the princess is probably OK as it is.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jessica Janecki <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 14:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] NARs for princesses

 

I turn to the collective wisdom for help with a NAR for a Duchess of York, Frederica Charlotte of Prussia. I find the RDA rules for royals (see 9.4 and 9.2.2.14) to be extremely hard to parse. She’s a royal both by birth and by marriage (daughter of a king and wife of a king’s son). She also doesn’t have a last name in any real sense and the examples in 9.2.2.14 all involve people with last names. The examples at 9.4 only show the title and don’t show the whole preferred name.

 

There is currently a NAR in the NAF, but it has a 667 THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED and I want to do the right thing and clean up the record while I am looking at it.

 

Current heading:

Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina, ǂc Princess, Duchess of York, ǂd 1767-1820

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Frederica_Charlotte_of_Prussia

 

Thanks in advance,

Jessica

 

 


 
******************************************************************************************************************

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*****************************************************************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

*****************************************************************************************************************

Think before you print