Hi Nick, Thanks for your response. I thought of that, too, so I thought that the year should change in March--not July. It just makes no sense to me. Also, I thought that maybe the date would change on the monarach's accession date, but it didn't change then either. It changes arbitrarily, it seems to me, in July!!! So, what it seems to boil down to is that, if you do not have a day/month and only the Regnal year and your date is before 1752, then you should use a december month in order to get the correct date! Does that make sense? Carole ps: I hope people have stopped fooling around with changing our calendar! If we go to a Startrek calendar, I think I'll just have to scream!! :)) ____________ Nicolas Blackhurst wrote: > > Hello Carole, > > Until 1752 the Julian Calandar was used, the year ran from 28 March to the 27 Mar of what we would think of as the following year. In this country (England) the Financial Year still starts on 28 March. So in your first example (Jan to June 1) you are quoting dates from two years. In your second example (Jul to Dec 1) you are quoting dates in the same year. This may be the reason for the error in the first example. Leycester would have been using the Julian Calandar. > > Regards, > > Nick > > When you do > >not know a day and month and you use Jan to June 1 (I've been checking > >against Leycester) your year will be 1 too high (1390). If you use Jul > >to Dec 1, your dates will match Leycester's dates 1389). Why this is > >so, I do not know! > > > > > >Carole > > > Nicolas Blackhurst, in Chester (The Roman Fortress of Deva), > England > nicolas.blackhurst@virgin.net > Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/nicolas.blackhurst/homepage.htm