The calendar change was an act of the British Parliment and had nothing to do with London Yearly Meeting, it impacted all British colonies and all religions. What was unique about Quakers was their unwillingness to use the names for the days of the week and the names for the months. This Quaker training was well indoctrinated, my great great great grandfather hadn't been a Quaker for 40 years but he still used first day, etc., in the journal he kept. Jim RC Brooks wrote: > > The London Meeting: A example of their directions and it impact on American > genealogists. > > When the British changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar > in 1752, the London Meeting dictated to the Quakers as to how to change > their method of calendar keeping. This is described in Ben Franklin's "Poor > Richard's Almanack" for 1752. > > For those not having Ben Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanack" for 1752 > immediately at hand: > > Before the change, New Years Day was 25 March with 24 March of the same year > following 364 days later (365 days later in leap years); i.e., you went to > bed on 31 Dec 1749 and woke up on 1 Jan 1749 or you went to bed on 24 Mar > 1749 and woke up on 25 Mar 1750. Many records used a double dating system > where the days between 1 Jan and 14 Mar, inclusive, were double dated. This > means you might find that you went to bed on 31 Dec 1749 and woke up on 1 > Jan 1749/50 or you went to bed on 24 Mar 1749/50 and woke up on 25 Mar 1750 > > The Quakers considered the names of some months to be pagan names so the > didn't name the months. In the so-called Quaker system, March was known as > "1st month" until 1752 when, in accordance with the directions from London, > January became "1st month." Therefore "10th day, 2nd month, 1755" was NOT > the fifth anniversary of "10th day, 2nd month, 1750." > > "10th day, 2nd month, 1750" was 10 June 1750 (o.s.) or 21 June 1750 (n.s.) > whereas "10th day, 2nd month, 1755" was 10 Feb 1755. > > In accordance with the rest of the British subjects, the 4th through 13th > days of the ninth month of 1752 were omitted from the Quaker calendar. > > Incidently, some towns used the so-called Quaker method of dating in the > town records well into the 19th century. One such example is Malden, > Massachusetts. > > Don't blame me if you are now confused, blame the London Meeting -- it was > their version of the new law. > > Bob Brooks > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog

> The calendar change was an act of the British Parliment > and had nothing to do with London Yearly Meeting, it > impacted all British colonies and all religions. Jim, my objective in making the original posting was to illustrate the London Meeting's involvement in the calendar used by Quakers in America. The Quaker calendar system would have been completely out of alignment with the Parliamentary Act, if the London Meeting had not interceded by supplying directions to the colonial meetings, therefore, I disagree with your statement: "...had nothing to do with London Yearly Meeting...." RootsWeb.com is a genealogical website and knowledge of what calendar is being used is being used is required by every genealogist in order to correctly interpret records of all religions. How else is one to know that a Cornish member of the Church of England would write a date as January 25th, 1725, a Presbyterian in Scotland, would record the date as January 25th, 1726, a Catholic in France would record the date as February 5th, 1726, and a Quaker in America would write the date as 25th day, 11th month, 1725 --- and all are speaking of the same day? As I wrote, the details are found in "Poor Rchard's Almanack" for 1752. This can be found in most university and major municipal libraries as microfilm of the original [Evans no. 6670]. The 1733 thru 1758 editions were reprinted in photofacsimile in the 1960s. The full title of the specific issue of interest is: _ Poor Richard improved: being an almanack and ephemeris ... for the year of our Lord 1752 : ... Fitted to the latitude of forty degrees, and a meridian of near five hours west from London; but may, without sensible error, serve all the northern colonies._ ( Philadelphia: : Printed and sold by B. Franklin, and D. Hall., [1751] ). >From memory now -- I recall that the National Genealogical Society in one of its quarterly journals in 1999 had a short article which included a transcription of the order from London as recorded in the meeting records of a local meeting -- somewhere in Pennsylvania or New York, if my memory serves. Bob Brooks