Genealogy Chat

Merry Thats an interesting point about the Quakers and I don't know the answer to it, but I have always assumed that their First month was January.....going off to check that now! I kind of feel they would have followed the Calendar of the time, otherwise they could have got into a terrible muddle: See you on January the 22nd, could have resulted in a very long wait for someone,otherwise! The problem occurs, not when there are TWO dates given, because that alerts you to the fact that there is something odd going on, but when there is only ONE date given - say, 1st November 1749. I then think, ah, need to adjust that, only to find on further research that five people before me have already altered it and its really November 1745! Olde Crone

Thanks for all this info - I hadn't taken it on board before now having luckily never come across entries with 2 dates. After reading all this I was intrigued to find out more and found a good webpage http://www.genfair(.)com/dates.htm Karen

You do need a very clear brain when recording dates. 10ber is not October (but I'm sure I've written it down like that once or twice) Occasionally you find records which start the year on January 1 pre 1752 (besides the Commonwealth period) Bishops' Transcripts sometimes run on beyond 24 March. As for the wretched vicars who note day and month, but don't bother to record the year... my opinions are not in the least bit Christian!

Just to add to the confusion, remember that Britain and its colonies were one of the last countries to switch over to the Gregorian date system. Most Catholic countries changed in 1582 but Britain refused to adopt the papist Gregorian Calendar and continued using Julian dates until 1752. Therefore, if you have ancestors born in Catholic Europe between 1582 and 1752, their dates in the foreign registers will be 11 days ahead of the equivalent date in Britain at the time! The orthodox countries were the last to switch over - Russia in 1918, Greece in 1923 and Turkey in 1926. Therefore, Russia's ''October Revolution'' of 1917 actually occurred in November, according to the Gregorian calendar!

Thanks for this thread. Ignorant as I am I didn't know about the calendar change (may have done in the back of my mind but not readily). I haven't got that far back yet but hopefully will and now i know a bit more. You learn something everyday. thanks Germaine x

Hello Joan, Glad you found your rellies! Am up early because am taking 6-year-old for op to have grommets in his ears. This is so when we are searching graveyards together, he can hear me when I shout, ''have you found it yet??'' from the other side of the church!! Am feeling ridiculously nervous about his general anasthetic (he has had one before and was fine).........So wish him, and me, luck! Olde Crone - Thanks for that!! My other slight dilemma is that many of my rellies were Quakers. They do not use the names of the months when recording BMD's. So pre-1752 I have to remember that ''the first month'' is March ''the second month'' is April etc. (Am still not sure when their New Years Day was - 25th of March? or 1st March? Otherwise they would need 13 ''months'' to get through the year!!) These things are sent to try us! Off to hospital in a few mins......... Merry (with bitten nails)

I think that's fascinating stuff, olde exhausted crone!! I shall make a note of those dates so when i'm looking in the PRs I won't get completely confused! I knew the calendar changed sometime, but not about the eleven days!! Thanks for that. Merry, nice to see you back, i've even managed to find my 'missing' rellies on the 1891 census whilst you've been gone, mistranscribed under Taylor!! Feeling quite chuffed with myself, I even know what an LDS centre is too!! I'm learning!! Joan

Merry That is EXACTLY my point - the Parish Registers DO NOT quote two years, they only quote one year. A birth in 1750 was a birth in 1750. There will then be a bit of a gap when nothing appears to have happened and hey presto, they start again with a new date - which is the correct one, as before. (Gosh, I'm not explaining this very well....) Start again. Before 1752, the year ran from March 25th (March being the first month of the year) to March 24th of the following year,(being the 12th month of the year) as we now know it. Example: The year 1749 ran from March25th (1st month)April, May, June, July August September October November December January February March upto 25th, the 12th month of the year 1749. The only time this becomes a problem is if say, a modern researcher finds a birth in April 1749 and a death in March 1749 - thinks: oh ho! that can't be right! when in fact the child was born in the second month of 1749 and died in the 12th month. Hence why you have to put a note in with your own research Phew! And whilst I am in full stream here, so to speak, the only people who did not agree to the 'lost' eleven days when everybody went over from Old Style to New Style, were the Bankers - they would have lost eleven days interest on their investments. A special case was allowed for them, and that is why the Financial Year starts on 6th April and ends on April 5th the following year. (25th March to 6th April equals eleven days) Olde, exhausted Crone.

Doh Brenda (and OC), I know I'm really thick over this. I still don't understand why I should record two years????? When I read ''Feb 1750/51'' I have to work out which year I am supposed to be thinking of..........and even now I can't work it out (second glass of wine!)....but if I read ''Feb 1750'' I know that means towards the end of 1750 and wouldn't have to work out anything....I still don't know how to write that with two years??? Do I write 1750/51 or 1749/50?? (Is it 1750/51, because I'm supposed to have forgotten that Feb was the end of 1750 and might think, in error, it was the beginning of 1751??) Sorry to be dim, but all the PR's I've looked at for this time period have not quoted two years (by chance, I realise!) and my brain has gone addled..... Merry

Yes, Brenda, I agree that you have to put some indication in your notes, however I still do not think it is necessary for Transcribers or submitters, etc. to tinker about with the dates - just transcribe it as you find it and let the researcher do the rest. (This also applies to names in Latin...leave THEM alone too, transcribe the latin exactly as you found it - you may not actually be as good at latin as you think you are, giving rise to misleading if not downright bizarre results). Oh, and while we are all showing off (LOL!), what about the practise of dating things 'in the eighth year of his Reign' - this always gets me as I can never remember if you start counting from 0 or 1. Olde Crone (post-chocolate phase now, so feeling slightly better)

Hi Sarah I'm sorry, but you have to write 1749/50, at least in notes, and b****r the computer. PAF never understood this, so I have lots of warning messages about babies born before marriage! Historians don't have the least grasp of dates and always write them New Style, which leads to endless confusion. Queen Elizabeth died 24 March 1602/3. I said to my then history tutor that the reign of King James must have seemed a whole new beginning, starting as it effectively did in a New Year. Her uncomprehending stare was quite unnerving.

Hi Dea (thanks!! I've missed everyone on here too!!) - Been to Devon!! No rellies from their either, but did just happen to visit two churchyards for a friend and find their ancestors gravestones, so that was my family history fix. My kids think everyone I know is dead, because wherever we go they say, ''are we going to the churchyard?'' to which the answer always seems to be..........Well......YES!! Merry

Hi Merry - where'vya bin ?? - Missed you. Dea

You cannot have transcribers showing off - that would never do! I can't understand why we have to see multiple years quoted pre-1752, such as 2nd Jan 1749/50. Why can't they just say 2nd Jan 1749??? Merry - (back from hols: unpacking, tidying and washing not started, because I need a GR fix first!)

Spent 5 hours 'batching' last night for the Greens. Their idea of a big joke was for two brothers, both the sons of Thomas, and one naturally called Thomas, to have their new born sons baptised on the same day, same Church and both called Thomas. Saw this with my own eyes on the PR last week. But 'batching' gave me the dates exactly a year LATER. Someone showing off their knowledge of Old Year/New Year and confusing me no end. Stop it! Anyone researching in the 1750s already knows about Old Year/New Year, so you just leave it as you find it, please. Irritable Olde Crone