Genealogy Chat

Have to say, Rod, that I'm now completely baffled. Is the date a. Recorded as (say) 31 January 1749 in the register, but you know it means 31 January 1750? b. Recorded as 31 January 1750 in the register, so you are recording what is written? c. Recorded as 31 July 1750 in the register, where previously you didn't know? d. Recorded as 31 January 1750 in the register and the vicar already started the year on 1 January anyway? I think you are right, and an explanatory note is going to be needed! (NB it really bugs me that historians don't understand the calendar changes and always use new style dates.)

Saved for Margaret N

Gregorian, Lesser Mortal, I,ll have less of that language please, having been born brought up and schooled in the twentieth century I think I can safely use my own judgement as to what I believe is the correct date as this will be used by my decendants who are also familiar with my way of thinking. Like your piece though John. Rod

Ahoy Salty, and what prithee do you define as the 'correct' year? Up to 1752, dates up to 25 March might be put in the lower or higher numbered year and this was perfectly legal. It was only in 1752 that it became compulsory for the year to start on 1st. January. It's just us logical Gregorian folk that assume that the year has to begin on 1st. January. Someone (Old Crone??) said they always put in the year as found in the parish records, so there can be no confusion (except in the brains of lesser mortals like us!!). J

Sam, I,m an old man, having read this through for the fourth time, I think I get what your saying. So I think I,ll have to put the correct date in the 'More' section.Thanks for your prompt reply. John thanks also. Rod

FTM automatically generates a 'double date' for anything from 1st. Jan to 25th. Mar from about 1700 to 1752. You can't turn it off. GR can't cope with that and interprets the year as (I think) the first 3 digits only. They may one day get round to curing it. J

It's becasue of the change of year end in 1752, see below: Before 1752, the year number changed over on March 26th. 1752 was the first year than January 1st was the first day of the year. This gives us a potential little problem when recording dates before March 26th in each year. If March 26th was the first day of the year, and let's say a couple were married on that day, in 1750. They could quite easily have a baptism of their first child on March 24th 1750 - a year later ! That's our problem. Some genealogists record precisely what is recorded in a parish register. Some record it as written, but didn't realise that in our modern calendar they could actually be referring to a different year. Some genealogists make an allowance and record 5 January 1750 as 5 January 1751 because 1751 is the 'real' year in our modern calendar. The big problem with either, is that we don't know if a genealogist or transcriber has written it literally or made allowance for the modern calendar! So, the correct standard for writing these dates in our records (and when we transcribe registers) is in the form 1750/1. It is them extremely obvious that 1750 is what was written in the register, but it was really 1751 in the new calendar. 1749/50, 1630/1, etc. Easy! No confusion. So, for all years up to and including 1751, dates between 1 January and 25 March inclusive, are written with double dates. 23 Jan 1731/2. Sam x

I wasn,t sure of a birth date so put 1749/50, have since found out its 1750 tried typing it in but keeps coming back to 1749/50 any ideas folks. Rod