Hi Bob, There was no Quaker Calendar system, they used the same calendar as the rest of the British Empire. The only distinction they made was that they didn't use the name of the days or the months. I haven't seen any evidence that London Yearly Meeting provided any instruction on the calendar charge nor would they have to, the guys in the new world were just as smart as the guys in the old world. It was pretty simple really, one day it was Sept. 2, the next day was Sept. 13, 1752. Now there was only one start of the new year instead of two. The rest wouldn't change. I know there were some complaints from those who's religion taught that God had already recorded their date of death, they thought Parliment had stolen 11 days of their lives. Calendar changes were implimented by country. Its my understanding that the calendar in Scotland and Cornwall would be the same as the calendar in London and Philadelphia since this was determined by Parliment. One interesting note, Napoleon won a major battle because the Russians were the last to change calendars and were 11 days late in meeting their British allies. I'll look for the article you mentioned but I'll be surprised if a meeting in New York was writing to London for instruction, they most certainly would have looked to their monthly or yearly meeting. Jim RC Brooks wrote: > > > 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