On 11/12/14 00:31, Charles Ellson wrote: > In most cases it doesn't matter that much if the _recorded_ date is > consistent as long as the error isn't anomolous serious (e.g. buried > before they died or baptised before birth) or serious (e.g. the wrong > year when a December event has been registered in January and careless > transcription has recorded the new year). Add to that dates on the Julian calendar. Often dates that would be early in the new-style year are given as 1723/4 but sometimes as simply 1723 or 1724. You have to look at context to decide. e.g. the PR originals keep the old-style date but the modern transcription gives the dual year format. However I've seen an antiquarian transcription use a simple form for the date of a medieval will & its probate where the context for interpreting it was a number of records from royal court rolls which would have been posthumous unless one realised the will dates given were old-style. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk