I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for Kent, saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at Milton, Kent on 8 Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish records, saying that the marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't find it in FreeREG.
>I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for Kent, > saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at Milton, Kent on > 8 > Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish records, saying that the > marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't find it in FreeREG.
> I am inclined to believe the Archivist.
Perhaps both are correct, since this predates the change to the Gregorian calendar in 1752. It is always necessary to ascertain what style of dating is used by the source document. Was the month following Dec 1842 called Jan 1842 or Jan 1843?
> I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for Kent, > saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at Milton, Kent on 8 > Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish records, saying that the > marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't find it in FreeREG.
> I am inclined to believe the Archivist.
Could it be a mixup over the calendar with the year ending at the end of March so the first three months would still be 1742?
> I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for > Kent, saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at > Milton, Kent on 8 Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish > records, saying that the marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't > find it in FreeREG.
> I am inclined to believe the Archivist. >
BOTH are correct, Doug ! Are you not aware of the calendar changes of 1752 when Britain switched over from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian?
Before then, the year used to run from March 25 to March 24, so that January, February and most of March were in what you might call "the old year", i.e. the year did not end on December 31 but continued until March 24.
When the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1752, the beginning of the year became January 1. In that same year 11 days were lost in September to bring us into line with the rest of Europe, most of which had had the Gregorian calendar since 1582.
The correct way to write dates before 1752 is to describe them as Old Style and New Style. Thus, the IGI has the date as February 8 1742, which is the Old Style. However, updating the calendar to the modern one, i.e. New Style, gives us a date of February 8 1743. This is what the archivist has done. Both dates were in fact the SAME DAY!
In writing this into your records, the correct format is as follows: February 8 1742/3.
Hope this clears up the confusion for you!
-- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
Steven Gibbs wrote: > "Doug Laidlaw" <d...@douglaidlaw.net> wrote in message > news:rell08-nc1.ln1@dougshost.douglaidlaw.net... >>I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for Kent, >> saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at Milton, Kent on >> 8 >> Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish records, saying that the >> marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't find it in FreeREG.
>> I am inclined to believe the Archivist.
> Perhaps both are correct, since this predates the change to the Gregorian > calendar in 1752. It is always necessary to ascertain what style of > dating > is used by the source document. Was the month following Dec 1842 called > Jan 1842 or Jan 1843?
> Steven
I had forgotten about that. The date is the same in both, not a difference of 11 days (post-1700.) The year in both calendars would have been the same. 8 Feb Julian was 19 Feb Gregorian; or 8 Feb Gregorian was about 28 Jan Julian. The changeover was 1752? Then in 1742 there would have been only one calendar in use. Otherwise it is like the guy who gave his girlfriend coins dated "56 B.C." She saw through him.
I think that it is more likely a transcription error. Probably, I could subscribe to the IGI and view the film.
Roy Stockdill wrote: > On 20 Jan 2011 at 23:12, Doug Laidlaw wrote:
>> I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for >> Kent, saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at >> Milton, Kent on 8 Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish >> records, saying that the marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't >> find it in FreeREG.
>> I am inclined to believe the Archivist. >
> BOTH are correct, Doug ! Are you not aware of the calendar changes of 1752 > when Britain switched over from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian?
> Before then, the year used to run from March 25 to March 24, so that > January, February and most of March were in what you might call "the old > year", i.e. the year did not end on December 31 but continued until March > 24.
> When the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1752, the beginning of the > year became January 1. In that same year 11 days were lost in September to > bring us into line with the rest of Europe, most of which had had the > Gregorian calendar since 1582.
> The correct way to write dates before 1752 is to describe them as Old > Style and New Style. Thus, the IGI has the date as February 8 1742, which > is the Old Style. However, updating the calendar to the modern one, i.e. > New Style, gives us a date of February 8 1743. This is what the archivist > has done. Both dates were in fact the SAME DAY!
> In writing this into your records, the correct format is as follows: > February 8 1742/3.
> Hope this clears up the confusion for you!
> -- > Roy Stockdill > Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: > www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE
The bit that I missed was the effect of the change in the beginning of the year. I knew that the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1752 (I studied history as well,) but I am talking about 1743. On 8 Feb 1743, England was still using the Julian calendar, and 8 Feb 1743 was 19 Feb in Catholic countries. The change in the beginning of the year didn't happen until 1752. So 1752 had two dates of 8 Feb, the normal one and the one for 1753. Was the year incremented on 25 March before then? Wasn't it more likely that they bought new calendars on 25 March 1752 and again on 1 Jan 1753, i.e. 1752 was shorter, not longer?
Assuming (and unfortunately, this isn't stated) that the Archivist is merely transcribing what is written, the date of the wedding on the parties' diaries was 8 Feb 1743. In France, it was called 19 Feb. If it should be 1742/3, the Archivist should have said so. This is one of 3 letters obtained by others, some years ago. None makes any mention of the calendar used. Similarly, the LDS do not say what calendar they are using. If the LDS are transcribing what is written and the Archivist is "doctoring" it, there is no evidence of that. But if the actual date was 8 Feb 1842, nobody ever called it 8 Feb 1843. To write a date that was never actually in use, is plain confusing. "Give us back 1 year and 11 days."
And the effect of using two years will be different after 25 March in any year.
I am glad that Australia wasn't settled before 1752.
>> I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for >> Kent, saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at >> Milton, Kent on 8 Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish >> records, saying that the marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't >> find it in FreeREG.
>> I am inclined to believe the Archivist.>
> BOTH are correct, Doug ! Are you not aware of the calendar changes of 1752 when > Britain switched over from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian?
> Before then, the year used to run from March 25 to March 24, so that January, > February and most of March were in what you might call "the old year", i.e. the year > did not end on December 31 but continued until March 24.
> When the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1752, the beginning of the year > became January 1. In that same year 11 days were lost in September to bring us into > line with the rest of Europe, most of which had had the Gregorian calendar since > 1582.
> The correct way to write dates before 1752 is to describe them as Old Style and New > Style. Thus, the IGI has the date as February 8 1742, which is the Old Style. However, > updating the calendar to the modern one, i.e. New Style, gives us a date of February 8 > 1743. This is what the archivist has done. Both dates were in fact the SAME DAY!
> In writing this into your records, the correct format is as follows: February 8 1742/3.
> Hope this clears up the confusion for you!
> -- > Roy Stockdill
I disagree with those that say both dates are correct, they are not.
As others have pointed out prior to year the calendar legally changed in England & Wales, 1752 the year started on 25 March not 01 January.
It follows therefore that February 8 1742 is one year before February 8 1743.
Some people living prior to the calendar change did follow the Pope’s edict and jump the gun (as did many catholic countries on the continent) but their actions did not change the legal year in England & Wales.
In the same way an error by a Kent archivist does not change the ancient calendar. In this instance the IGI correctly records the date February 8 1742.
Dates prior to 1752 should be recorded either as the legal calendar required or by using the double dating mentioned by Roy, never by unilaterally changing to the new calendar as that did not exist in England and Wales at the time. Cheers Guy
>> "Doug Laidlaw" <d...@douglaidlaw.net> wrote in message >> news:rell08-nc1.ln1@dougshost.douglaidlaw.net... >>>I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for Kent, >>> saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at Milton, Kent on >>> 8 >>> Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish records, saying that the >>> marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't find it in FreeREG.
>>> I am inclined to believe the Archivist.
>> Perhaps both are correct, since this predates the change to the Gregorian >> calendar in 1752. It is always necessary to ascertain what style of >> dating >> is used by the source document. Was the month following Dec 1842 called >> Jan 1842 or Jan 1843?
>> Steven
>I had forgotten about that. The date is the same in both, not a difference >of 11 days (post-1700.) The year in both calendars would have been the same. >8 Feb Julian was 19 Feb Gregorian; or 8 Feb Gregorian was about 28 Jan >Julian. The changeover was 1752? Then in 1742 there would have been only >one calendar in use. Otherwise it is like the guy who gave his girlfriend >coins dated "56 B.C." She saw through him.
>I think that it is more likely a transcription error. Probably, I could >subscribe to the IGI and view the film.
IME a one year error is neither exclusive to the IGI nor to Old v. New calendar. On several occasions I have found misindexing (the most recent involving 20th century burial records) in Ancestry (not necessarily their own indexing) in the form of all entries copying the year at the top of the page but ignoring the start of the new year part way through the register page.
> > I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for > > Kent, saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at > > Milton, Kent on 8 Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish > > records, saying that the marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't > > find it in FreeREG.
> > I am inclined to believe the Archivist. >
> BOTH are correct, Doug ! Are you not aware of the calendar changes of > 1752 when Britain switched over from the Julian calendar to the > Gregorian?
> Before then, the year used to run from March 25 to March 24, so that > January, February and most of March were in what you might call "the > old year", i.e. the year did not end on December 31 but continued > until March 24.
> When the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1752, the beginning of > the year became January 1. In that same year 11 days were lost in > September to bring us into line with the rest of Europe, most of which > had had the Gregorian calendar since 1582.
> The correct way to write dates before 1752 is to describe them as Old > Style and New Style. Thus, the IGI has the date as February 8 1742, > which is the Old Style. However, updating the calendar to the modern > one, i.e. New Style, gives us a date of February 8 1743. This is what > the archivist has done. Both dates were in fact the SAME DAY!
> In writing this into your records, the correct format is as follows: > February 8 1742/3.
> Hope this clears up the confusion for you! >
This is a topic that has cropped up before, however I feel impelled to stress that all family historians ought to be thoroughly familiar with the calendar changes of 1752, since it can have a major effect on our researches as the above example clearly shows. Those not au fait with the changes will be mightily puzzled sometimes by apparent discrepancies in the dates of their ancestors' life events!
One obvious effect often seen is on the cited birth dates of famous people born before 1752. Which style is being employed, Old or New? It's not always easy to tell, since some sources may give a date that appears to differ by a year from others. And, of course, the loss of 11 days in September 1752 - Sep 2 was followed by Sep 14 in that year - also clouds the issue.
The following extract from Terrick V H FitzHugh's splendid book "The Dictionary of Genealogy" makes interesting reading.....
"In the Middle Ages, dates were usually indicated (for years) by the regnal year of the reigning monarch and (for days) by the number of days before or after the nearest church festival or fast. When Anno Domini years were shown, there was no regularity as to the day on which the year was considered to have begun. To the writer of the document, New Year's Day might have been 1 January, 25 March or 25 December.
"At the Reformation it was laid down in the Book of Common Prayer that 'the Supputation [reckoning] of the year of our Lord in the Church of England beginneth the Five and twentieth day of March, the same day supposed to be the first day upon which the world was created and the day when Christ was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary'."
Calculate nine months from March 25 and you can see why we celebrate Christmas Day on December 25 - a date which, while universally recognised, cannot be proven to have been Jesus Christ's supposed birth date.
You can see also why in the Julian calendar (as laid down by Julius Caesar) the months of September, October, November and December, with the appropriate Latin suffixes, were the seventh to tenth months of the year but no longer are. This is a point to watch out for if you have Quaker ancestors - which I suspect most of us do - for the Quakers did not use the names of months but described them by numbers.
You will come across occasionally the abbreviation terms, "7ber, 8ber, 9ber and 10ber". These refer in old records to September, October, November and December, as in the Julian calendar, and shouldn't be mistaken for the modern-style months of July to October.
Hope this helps some newcomers and beginners to family history not to fall into what one might call the "calendar trap"!
-- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
>>> I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for >>> Kent, saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at >>> Milton, Kent on 8 Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish >>> records, saying that the marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't >>> find it in FreeREG.
>>> I am inclined to believe the Archivist. >
>> BOTH are correct, Doug ! Are you not aware of the calendar changes of >> 1752 when Britain switched over from the Julian calendar to the >> Gregorian?
>> Before then, the year used to run from March 25 to March 24, so that >> January, February and most of March were in what you might call "the old >> year", i.e. the year did not end on December 31 but continued until March >> 24.
>> When the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1752, the beginning of the >> year became January 1. In that same year 11 days were lost in September >> to bring us into line with the rest of Europe, most of which had had the >> Gregorian calendar since 1582.
>> The correct way to write dates before 1752 is to describe them as Old >> Style and New Style. Thus, the IGI has the date as February 8 1742, which >> is the Old Style. However, updating the calendar to the modern one, i.e. >> New Style, gives us a date of February 8 1743. This is what the archivist >> has done. Both dates were in fact the SAME DAY!
>> In writing this into your records, the correct format is as follows: >> February 8 1742/3.
>> Hope this clears up the confusion for you!
>> -- >> Roy Stockdill >> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer >> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: >> www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, >> and that is not being talked about." >> OSCAR WILDE
> The bit that I missed was the effect of the change in the beginning of the > year. I knew that the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1752 (I > studied > history as well,) but I am talking about 1743. On 8 Feb 1743, England was > still using the Julian calendar, and 8 Feb 1743 was 19 Feb in Catholic > countries. The change in the beginning of the year didn't happen until > 1752. So 1752 had two dates of 8 Feb, the normal one and the one for > 1753. > Was the year incremented on 25 March before then? Wasn't it more likely > that they bought new calendars on 25 March 1752 and again on 1 Jan 1753, > i.e. 1752 was shorter, not longer?
> Assuming (and unfortunately, this isn't stated) that the Archivist is > merely transcribing what is written, the date of the wedding on the > parties' > diaries was 8 Feb 1743. In France, it was called 19 Feb. If it should be > 1742/3, the Archivist should have said so. This is one of 3 letters > obtained by others, some years ago. None makes any mention of the > calendar > used. Similarly, the LDS do not say what calendar they are using. If > the LDS are transcribing what is written and the Archivist is "doctoring" > it, > there is no evidence of that. But if the actual date was 8 Feb 1842, > nobody > ever called it 8 Feb 1843. To write a date that was never actually in > use, > is plain confusing. "Give us back 1 year and 11 days."
> And the effect of using two years will be different after 25 March in any > year.
> I am glad that Australia wasn't settled before 1752.
> Doug.
Sorry, I think that I have it now. It applies only to dates between 1 Jan, when the historical year started, and 25 Mar when the legal year ended. It seems equally relevant before 1582, but no reference bothers about those years. The 11 days really has nothing to do with it.
> I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for > Kent, saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at > Milton, Kent on 8 Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish > records, saying that the marriage was on 8 February,
1742.
No problem there. The church year began on 25 March then, so events were expressed as - February 1742 - and this has been faithfully reproduced in the IGI extract. The modernised version of that is 1743. The normal practive, which the Canterbury archivist should have used, is to write 8 February 1742/3, which makes it quite clear. Alternatively he/she should have exp0lained the original event had been modernised. EVE
Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Laidlaw" <d...@douglaidlaw.net> >I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for Kent, > saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at Milton, Kent on 8 > Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish records, saying that the > marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't find it in FreeREG. > > I am inclined to believe the Archivist.> > Doug.
They may both be right :-) Don't forget you are in the in the period when some still reckoned New Year's Day as March 25th, others as January 1st. + some genealogical programmes cannot cope with or correct )O.S. dating.
So you will need to look backwards and forwards at the surrounding register entries to establish the year. It may be that the archivist is using Old Style, The IGI New Style.
Doug best bet is to use the lds to obtain a photocopy of the original document, you can do this direct to their phocopying service at Salt Lake City, it doesn't cost the Earth and I found it to be an excellant service. This is also possible where entries are not transcribed to the IGI and the lds have the parish film and you may have an index refeference via the local FHS, on their cd's or online at Findyourpast which will indicate a date ie prior to the intro of the Gregorian Calendar or otherwise. hope this helps cheers Bob in Brisbane
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Laidlaw" <d...@douglaidlaw.net> To: <genb...@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:12 PM Subject: IGI Inaccurate?
>I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for Kent, > saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at Milton, Kent on > 8 > Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish records, saying that the > marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't find it in FreeREG.
> The bit that I missed was the effect of the change in the beginning of > the year. I knew that the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1752 > (I studied history as well,) but I am talking about 1743. On 8 Feb > 1743, England was still using the Julian calendar, and 8 Feb 1743 was > 19 Feb in Catholic countries. The change in the beginning of the year > didn't happen until 1752. So 1752 had two dates of 8 Feb, the normal > one and the one for 1753. Was the year incremented on 25 March before > then? Wasn't it more likely that they bought new calendars on 25 > March 1752 and again on 1 Jan 1753, i.e. 1752 was shorter, not longer?
> Assuming (and unfortunately, this isn't stated) that the Archivist is > merely transcribing what is written, the date of the wedding on the > parties' diaries was 8 Feb 1743. In France, it was called 19 Feb. If > it should be 1742/3, the Archivist should have said so. This is one > of 3 letters obtained by others, some years ago. None makes any > mention of the calendar used. Similarly, the LDS do not say what > calendar they are using. If the LDS are transcribing what is written > and the Archivist is "doctoring" it, there is no evidence of that. > But if the actual date was 8 Feb 1842, nobody ever called it 8 Feb > 1843. To write a date that was never actually in use, is plain > confusing. "Give us back 1 year and 11 days."
> And the effect of using two years will be different after 25 March in > any year. >
I don't understand why this has become so complicated! It really is quite simple.....
1) It's not a question of whether the change in the calendar didn't happen until 1752 - when they happened is, in a sense, irrelevant - but how actual dates which occurred before that year are written and recorded TODAY. The terms used, as I explained, are Old Style and New Style reckonings.
2) I feel virtually certain that if you examine the actual film of the registers from which the IGI record was taken, containing a marriage date on 8 Feb 1742, it will show that the months of January, February and most of March 1742 (up to the 24th) continued immediately after December 1742, i.e. they were still in the SAME year under the Julian calendar. You would have to look at the film to see whether this was the case. As far as I am aware, the IGI uses the Old Style reckoning, though this may vary. I have never been able to get an absolute answer out of the LDS on this.
3) The archivist who gave the date as 8 Feb 1743 has taken it upon himself to adjust the date to the New Style reckoning. Unfortunately, it seems he didn't add the vital additional information that he had done this. He should have done so, which would have forestalled any confusion.
4) The fact remains that 8 Feb 1742 in Old Style reckoning and 8 Feb 1743 in New Style were, physically, the SAME DAY! It's not a question of how the date was recorded at the actual time, but how we record it today. As I said earlier, the correct procedure is to write the date as 8 Feb 1742/3 - or, as another lister suggested, to record it as 8 Feb 1742/43, which would leave no room for doubt.
Surely this cannot be made any clearer?
-- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
> I disagree with those that say both dates are correct, they are not.
> As others have pointed out prior to year the calendar legally changed > in England & Wales, 1752 the year started on 25 March not 01 January.
> It follows therefore that February 8 1742 is one year before February > 8 1743.
> Some people living prior to the calendar change did follow the Pope s > edict and jump the gun (as did many catholic countries on the > continent) but their actions did not change the legal year in England > & Wales.
> In the same way an error by a Kent archivist does not change the > ancient calendar. In this instance the IGI correctly records the date > February 8 1742.
> Dates prior to 1752 should be recorded either as the legal calendar > required or by using the double dating mentioned by Roy, never by > unilaterally changing to the new calendar as that did not exist in > England and Wales at the time. Cheers Guy >
You are, of course, correct Guy (as usual). Possibly I was in error in saying that both dates were correct. What I actually meant, as I am sure you realise, was that what was being referred to here was just ONE single date which was being recorded today in two different ways!
The archivist, as I have said in another message, was in error in taking it upon himself (which is what seems to have happened) to refer to the date 8 Feb 1742 (Old Style) as 8 Feb 1743 (New Style). He should have made it clear in his letter that he had applied the change, since I feel sure that this is what has given rise to confusion.
Personally, I always use the double dating system - i.e. 8 Feb 1742/43 - when recording dates before 1752. That way there can be no confusion. Of course, this does mean you have to look at the original record, since if you are working from a transcription it may not be made clear whether the change has already been applied or not!
-- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
> Hi Doug, > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Laidlaw" > <d...@douglaidlaw.net> >I have a letter from the archivist at > Canterbury as the office for Kent, > saying that John Boykett and > Sarah Hearne were married at Milton, Kent on 8 > Feb 1743. The IGI > has an extract of the Parish records, saying that the > marriage was > on 8 February, 1742. I can't find it in FreeREG. > > I am inclined to > believe the Archivist.> > Doug.
> They may both be right :-) > Don't forget you are in the in the period when some still reckoned New > Year's Day as March 25th, others as January 1st. + some genealogical > programmes cannot cope with or correct )O.S. dating.
> So you will need to look backwards and forwards at the surrounding > register entries to establish the year. It may be that the archivist > is using Old Style, The IGI New Style.
> Cheers > John Henley >
T'other way round, actually! The IGI date is Old Style, the archivist's version New Style.
-- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
<<It may be that the archivist is using Old Style, The IGI New Style.>>
And Roy and Eve wrote similarly.
An interesting implication is that if a child died soon after it was baptised, then it could seem to have been buried before it was born.
This could happen if the source of the date of the baptism has 'updated' to modern dates but the source of the date of the burial hasn't.
Say the child was baptised on 5 January 1748 O/S and was buried on 12 February 1748 O/S. Then updating the baptism to N/S would give 1749 but keeping the burial as O/S would give 1748.
Of course, both would have to occur during those roughly three months at the beginning (N/S) or end (O/S) of the year.
In article <rell08-nc1....@dougshost.douglaidlaw.net>, d...@douglaidlaw.net says...
> I have a letter from the archivist at Canterbury as the office for Kent, > saying that John Boykett and Sarah Hearne were married at Milton, Kent on 8 > Feb 1743. The IGI has an extract of the Parish records, saying that the > marriage was on 8 February, 1742. I can't find it in FreeREG.
> I am inclined to believe the Archivist.
Obviously, the IGI has 1742 instead of 1742/43. The LDS tends to disregard double-dating.
> 4) The fact remains that 8 Feb 1742 in Old Style reckoning and 8 Feb 1743 in New > Style were, physically, the SAME DAY! It's not a question of how the date was > recorded at the actual time, but how we record it today. As I said earlier, the correct > procedure is to write the date as 8 Feb 1742/3 - or, as another lister suggested, to > record it as 8 Feb 1742/43, which would leave no room for doubt.
When I use the notation 8 Feb 1742/3 in PAF it auto-corrects to 8 Feb 1742/1743 which leaves even less room for doubts :-)
> The archivist, as I have said in another message, was in error in taking it upon himself > (which is what seems to have happened) to refer to the date 8 Feb 1742 (Old Style) as > 8 Feb 1743 (New Style). He should have made it clear in his letter that he had applied > the change, since I feel sure that this is what has given rise to confusion.
Has anyone actually checked the registers? It seems strange that an archivist would be so unprofessional. Could be it be that the register does say 1743? Perhaps the IGI transcriber decided to show OLD format for year and changed it to 1742.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:35:27 -0000, "Roy Stockdill"
<roy.stockd...@btinternet.com> wrote: >This is a topic that has cropped up before, however I feel impelled to stress that all >family historians ought to be thoroughly familiar with the calendar changes of 1752, >since it can have a major effect on our researches as the above example clearly >shows. Those not au fait with the changes will be mightily puzzled sometimes by >apparent discrepancies in the dates of their ancestors' life events!
>One obvious effect often seen is on the cited birth dates of famous people born before >1752. Which style is being employed, Old or New? It's not always easy to tell, since >some sources may give a date that appears to differ by a year from others. And, of >course, the loss of 11 days in September 1752 - Sep 2 was followed by Sep 14 in that >year - also clouds the issue.
Readers also need to be aware that the change in the date of the start of the year was not uniformly introduced in practice. Therefore when looking at actual registers it's always worth looking at the dates and where a year change is noted.
I have copies of the Sedlescombe, Sussex registers where the change to 1 Jan starting the new year did not occur until 1784. -- Robert G. Eldridge Toronto NSW Australia http://www.eldridgegenealogy.org Now researching ELDRIDGE families world wide 1000s at my Web site *Wanted* Any Eldridge related information
This newsgroup post is not an invitation to reply by email.
On Jan 21, 3:08 am, "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockd...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 4) The fact remains that 8 Feb 1742 in Old Style reckoning and 8 Feb 1743 in New > Style were, physically, the SAME DAY! It's not a question of how the date was > recorded at the actual time, but how we record it today. As I said earlier, the correct > procedure is to write the date as 8 Feb 1742/3 - or, as another lister suggested, to > record it as 8 Feb 1742/43, which would leave no room for doubt.
> Surely this cannot be made any clearer?
> -- > Roy Stockdill
Maybe it can, because your and other explanations are incorrect. The point which is missing is that 8 Feb 1742 Old Style was most certainly NOT the same day as 8 Feb 1743 New Style. Transport yourself back in time to the day the English quaintly held to be 8 Feb 1742 (OS). Now, ask yourself, what was the date of that same day 20 miles away across the channel in France? It was most certainly not 8 Feb 1743, but was 19 February 1743.
> > The bit that I missed was the effect of the change in the beginning > > of the year. I knew that the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in > > 1752 (I studied history as well,) but I am talking about 1743. On 8 > > Feb 1743, England was still using the Julian calendar, and 8 Feb > > 1743 was 19 Feb in Catholic countries. The change in the beginning > > of the year didn't happen until 1752. So 1752 had two dates of 8 > > Feb, the normal one and the one for 1753. Was the year incremented > > on 25 March before then? Wasn't it more likely that they bought new > > calendars on 25 March 1752 and again on 1 Jan 1753, i.e. 1752 was > > shorter, not longer?
> > Assuming (and unfortunately, this isn't stated) that the Archivist > > is merely transcribing what is written, the date of the wedding on > > the parties' diaries was 8 Feb 1743. In France, it was called 19 > > Feb. If it should be 1742/3, the Archivist should have said so. > > This is one of 3 letters obtained by others, some years ago. None > > makes any mention of the calendar used. Similarly, the LDS do not > > say what calendar they are using. If the LDS are transcribing what > > is written and the Archivist is "doctoring" it, there is no evidence > > of that. But if the actual date was 8 Feb 1842, nobody ever called > > it 8 Feb 1843. To write a date that was never actually in use, is > > plain confusing. "Give us back 1 year and 11 days."
> > And the effect of using two years will be different after 25 March > > in any year. >
> I don't understand why this has become so complicated! It really is > quite simple.....
> 1) It's not a question of whether the change in the calendar didn't > happen until 1752 - when they happened is, in a sense, irrelevant - > but how actual dates which occurred before that year are written and > recorded TODAY. The terms used, as I explained, are Old Style and New > Style reckonings.
> 2) I feel virtually certain that if you examine the actual film of the > registers from which the IGI record was taken, containing a marriage > date on 8 Feb 1742, it will show that the months of January, February > and most of March 1742 (up to the 24th) continued immediately after > December 1742, i.e. they were still in the SAME year under the Julian > calendar. You would have to look at the film to see whether this was > the case. As far as I am aware, the IGI uses the Old Style reckoning, > though this may vary. I have never been able to get an absolute answer > out of the LDS on this.
> 3) The archivist who gave the date as 8 Feb 1743 has taken it upon > himself to adjust the date to the New Style reckoning. Unfortunately, > it seems he didn't add the vital additional information that he had > done this. He should have done so, which would have forestalled any > confusion.
> 4) The fact remains that 8 Feb 1742 in Old Style reckoning and 8 Feb > 1743 in New Style were, physically, the SAME DAY! It's not a question > of how the date was recorded at the actual time, but how we record it > today. As I said earlier, the correct procedure is to write the date > as 8 Feb 1742/3 - or, as another lister suggested, to record it as 8 > Feb 1742/43, which would leave no room for doubt.
> Surely this cannot be made any clearer?
Regrettably it can, though I am sure my account is muddled.
A forbear of mine wrote some diaries in the second half of the 18th century; both she and her husband were born before the magic year of 1752. The diaries contain entries of her husband's and their children's birthdays and she was punctilious in adding NS or OS to these to indicate whether the lost fourteen days had been added in or not.
So, and I hope I have this right, if one of them was born before 1752, say on 1st August in some year, up to 1 Jan 1752 the birthday was celebrated as being on 1st August. But in 1752 they lost 14 days so from then on they celebrated the anniversary of the birth on the 15th August NS. So we have two different dates for their births.
My real regret is that my favourite genealogy program is totally unable to handle this except by allowing one to wreck calculations by putting in any text that it cannot parse as a date.
Sorry not to have snipped on the above but this is one of those occasions when most of the previous discussion needs preserving.
-- Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:27:36 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote: >A forbear of mine wrote some diaries in the second half of the 18th >century; both she and her husband were born before the magic year of >1752. The diaries contain entries of her husband's and their children's >birthdays and she was punctilious in adding NS or OS to these to >indicate whether the lost fourteen days had been added in or not.
>So, and I hope I have this right, if one of them was born before 1752, >say on 1st August in some year, up to 1 Jan 1752 the birthday was >celebrated as being on 1st August. But in 1752 they lost 14 days so >from then on they celebrated the anniversary of the birth on the 15th >August NS. So we have two different dates for their births.
No, back then they would only have lost 11 days, and it's now up to 13 (so Russian Christmas is on 7 January).
>My real regret is that my favourite genealogy program is totally unable >to handle this except by allowing one to wreck calculations by putting >in any text that it cannot parse as a date.
>Sorry not to have snipped on the above but this is one of those >occasions when most of the previous discussion needs preserving.
