In message <[email protected]>, Keith Griffiths <[email protected]> writes >Continuing this thread, there is a memorial inscription on the floor of a >church which reads: > >".... DEPARTED THIS LIFE 21 JANVARY >Ao [i.e. 'A' followed by a superscript small 'o'] 1617 >ÆTATIS SVÆ 58 .." > >I am advised that this reads: > >".... departed this life 21 January in the year 1617 of his age of 58 >[years] ....". > >What year is this likely to be I wonder. calendar year 1617 age of the deceased was between 57 and 58 (like 16 going on seventeen.) the first 'year of his age' is birth to 12 months, the second 1 to 2 and so on. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Dear Audrey, Frithelstock and the others are about 10 miles inland, near Gt Torrington. For me, here in the midst of the cornfields of Illinois, it's coastal! But probably not considered so in Devon : ) Guess inland can be a relative term.... Betsy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> To: "Betsy" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Wives names > Dear Betsy > > Was this inland Devon or near the coast? St. Barbara is the patron saint > of sailors. > > Audrey >

I was trying to decide if Thomas & Barbara Gorvett having children in Frithelstock, Devon could be the same as Thomas & Barbara GORVIN having children in Monkleigh with in the same 15 year time frame, with Barbara being on the more "uncommon name" side of things. I did my own little name study in 5 neighboring towns in Devon for the time of early parish records (late 1500s) through roughly 1750. I used names in the baptismal records and it really isn't very scientific but interesting. I found that the names Mary, Ann and Elizabeth accounted for almost 50% of the female baptisms and the names Joan/Joanne and Grace or Jane accounted for the next almost 15 percent. So those female name accounted for roughly 65 to 70 percent of all women! Margaret and Susan/Susannah and Rebecca taking up the next big chunks. But the names tended to be more popular in certain towns (i.ei Rebecca being in 4.3% place in Petersmarland but only little more than 1% in other towns). The men's side of things was even more drastic! John & William alone accounted for almost 45% of all men. Thomas was third in most towns, usually around 8-10% although Samuel was third in one town. I had looked at some research done using towns that were elsewhere in England (sorry cannot find it now) and they had Barbara as a more common woman's name. I found this not to be true in the little section of Devon where I looked. Barbara was not even on the radar! Like I said, very unscientific, but the chances of a man remarrying a "Mary" would be much more likely than remarrying another "Frances" . Betsy

Continuing this thread, there is a memorial inscription on the floor of a church which reads: ".... DEPARTED THIS LIFE 21 JANVARY Ao [i.e. 'A' followed by a superscript small 'o'] 1617 ÆTATIS SVÆ 58 .." I am advised that this reads: ".... departed this life 21 January in the year 1617 of his age of 58 [years] ....". What year is this likely to be I wonder. ~~ Keith Griffiths Elmsted, Kent

Keith's message has just reminded me about the following inscription in South Molton church: NEAR THIS PLACE LYETH THE BODY OF MR JOHN CRUSE CURATE OF THIS CHURCH AND FIRST MASTER OF THE NEW SCHOOL FOUNDED & ENDOWED BY HUGH SQUIRE Esq OF THE CITY OF LONDON WHO DIED THE 24 OF MARCH 1691 AND WAS BURIED YE 29 DAY OF THE SAME MONTH 1692 Because of the old-style calendar this gentleman was of course buried just five days after his death not one whole year later! Debbie Kennett In a message dated 25/07/2006 08:09:09 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Continuing this thread, there is a memorial inscription on the floor of a church which reads: ".... DEPARTED THIS LIFE 21 JANVARY Ao [i.e. 'A' followed by a superscript small 'o'] 1617 ÆTATIS SVÆ 58 .." I am advised that this reads: ".... departed this life 21 January in the year 1617 of his age of 58 [years] ....". What year is this likely to be I wonder. ~~ Keith Griffiths Elmsted, Kent

At 00:38 25/07/2006, Eve McLaughlin wrote: >No one suggested that - the men seem to have selected women of the same >forename to avoid it. It happens a great deal - and, as someone pointed >out, John son of John and Elizabeth tends to marry an Elizabeth too - >just to annoy. They had far better ways of annoying us than that. > >The name pool in some small closed communities was so small that > >statistically a lot of second marriages would be to women with the > >same name as their predecessor. >It was not that small in practice Certainly in the Lancashire hill communities that I've worked with in the 16th and 17th centuries the name pools didn't often run into double figures and when they did they tended to be spread over families that did not intermarry. I really can't see that a working man desperate for a woman to take care of his children would pass over suitable candidates just because they did not share the name of their first wives. John

In message <[email protected]>, John <[email protected]> writes >At 21:22 23/07/2006, Eve McLaughlin wrote: >>When you think of the consequences of the husband's coming home and >>saying 'Lizzie, where's me dinner?' to a second wife named Maggie - >>given a spirited Maggie, his dinner would end up over his head, not on >>his plate. And in more intimate moments..........? > >Eve, that is a rather quaint notion, would such a spirited woman take >kindly to having to adopt the name of a dead first wife to avoid the >offence of accidental use of the first wife's name? No one suggested that - the men seem to have selected women of the same forename to avoid it. It happens a great deal - and, as someone pointed out, John son of John and Elizabeth tends to marry an Elizabeth too - just to annoy. >The name pool in some small closed communities was so small that >statistically a lot of second marriages would be to women with the >same name as their predecessor. It was not that small in practice -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

I still think that the name may shape the model. Knowing a friend whose present partner has the same name as his lamented dead wife makes me think that he was looking for a lady who had Ann type attributes rather than guarding against an accidental slip of the tongue. Also knowing what a lovely person the first Ann was, I do so hope the second Ann matches up. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "John" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > At 21:22 23/07/2006, Eve McLaughlin wrote: >>When you think of the consequences of the husband's coming home and >>saying 'Lizzie, where's me dinner?' to a second wife named Maggie - >>given a spirited Maggie, his dinner would end up over his head, not on >>his plate. And in more intimate moments..........? > > Eve, that is a rather quaint notion, would such a spirited woman take > kindly to having to adopt the name of a dead first wife to avoid the > offence of accidental use of the first wife's name? > The name pool in some small closed communities was so small that > statistically a lot of second marriages would be to women with the same > name as their predecessor. > > John > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > >

At 21:22 23/07/2006, Eve McLaughlin wrote: >When you think of the consequences of the husband's coming home and >saying 'Lizzie, where's me dinner?' to a second wife named Maggie - >given a spirited Maggie, his dinner would end up over his head, not on >his plate. And in more intimate moments..........? Eve, that is a rather quaint notion, would such a spirited woman take kindly to having to adopt the name of a dead first wife to avoid the offence of accidental use of the first wife's name? The name pool in some small closed communities was so small that statistically a lot of second marriages would be to women with the same name as their predecessor. John

In message <[email protected]>, Rosemary Jarvis <[email protected]> writes >Such coincidences still happen without any deliberate intention - my late >husband married two Rosemarys, me and his first wife, and his brother >married two Gillians - ok in his case his very first wife was Venetia but >still ... in this family it was the norm! But I suspect Eve was being a >little - umm - would flippant fit? Exactly. But in my experience, there are far too many second marriages where the bride's name is the same as that of the first wife for it to be a pure coincidence. John and Mary, sure, masses of those. but James and Kezia X 2? Stephen and Rebecca X 2? When you think of the consequences of the husband's coming home and saying 'Lizzie, where's me dinner?' to a second wife named Maggie - given a spirited Maggie, his dinner would end up over his head, not on his plate. And in more intimate moments..........? -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

As I understand it, many people were named for grandparents or godparents and that quite often led to two brothers or sisters being named identically. This was because the family knew that John 1 was named after his paternal grandfather and John 2 for the maternal grandfather both of whom were likely to leave something on death to their favoured grandchild. If this is correct it's a practise that would tend to concentrate the use of names on a limited selection and perpetuate the habit. You might only have got a new name if you came late enough for it not to matter. I suppose it's a theory that could be put to the test if someone was patient enough to go through enough family trees. Ken -----Original Message----- From: Norman Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 July 2006 15:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years You've illustrated my point, I think, Ros. Unless Eve actually tells us what was in her mind, we have no way of telling. I agree that a lot of people seem to repeat names when they remarry. Perhaps it's a case of feeling comfortable with someone who bears the same name or perhaps names shape the way people develop and the ideas they adopt. No-one could blame someone wanting a similar model to replace the old much loved original. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosemary Jarvis" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > Such coincidences still happen without any deliberate intention - my late > husband married two Rosemarys, me and his first wife, and his brother > married two Gillians - ok in his case his very first wife was Venetia but > still ... in this family it was the norm! But I suspect Eve was being a > little - umm - would flippant fit? > > Ros > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 12:34 AM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > > >> As a matter of interest, how do you know that these men didn't want to >> bother memorising a new name for a new wife? There were a lot of women > about >> with a limited selection of names. Perhaps it was more a case of their >> parents not bothering to be inventive when a new girl was born so >> creating >> and perpetuating a limited selection? It certainly is a gift when a child >> was given a name unique in her locality and particularly if the family > then >> adopted it for later generations. But the same name for subsequent wives > of >> the same man raises all sorts of questions the answers to which I can't > see >> how we can ever discover. >> >> Audrey >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:23 PM >> Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years >> >> >> > In message <[email protected] >> > online.co.uk>, Yvonne Purdy <[email protected]> writes >> >>Dear all, >> >> >> >>Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? >> >> >> >>I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is >> >>this >> >>actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips >> >>with >> >>this. >> > It should be old style and therefore 1569 in modern terms. However, be >> > wary that if this is from a transcribed version of a register, it is >> > quite possible that the date has been adjusted. Early transcriptions >> > (and some done for LDS) do correct the date to modern style, whereas >> > the >> > later transcribers mostly followed the convention of putting '1568/9', >> > to make it quite clear what was actually written and intended. >> > A full printed transcription will state this at the beginning, but, of >> > course, if you are using the IGI/Family Search, there is no way of >> > telling, since no single convention was followed (i.e. some >> > transcribers >> > knew about old/new style, some didn't, some copied from old >> > transcriptions without noticing which was used. >> > It can be quite difficult, just gathering names from a transcript, >> > because a lot of men married a second (even a third) wife with the same >> > name as the first, to avoid having to memorise something new. >> > -- >> > Eve McLaughlin >> > >> > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians >> > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society >> > >> > >> > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- >> > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to >> > [email protected] >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: > 21/07/2006 >> > >> > >> >> >> ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: >> http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > [email protected] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH

You've illustrated my point, I think, Ros. Unless Eve actually tells us what was in her mind, we have no way of telling. I agree that a lot of people seem to repeat names when they remarry. Perhaps it's a case of feeling comfortable with someone who bears the same name or perhaps names shape the way people develop and the ideas they adopt. No-one could blame someone wanting a similar model to replace the old much loved original. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosemary Jarvis" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > Such coincidences still happen without any deliberate intention - my late > husband married two Rosemarys, me and his first wife, and his brother > married two Gillians - ok in his case his very first wife was Venetia but > still ... in this family it was the norm! But I suspect Eve was being a > little - umm - would flippant fit? > > Ros > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 12:34 AM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > > >> As a matter of interest, how do you know that these men didn't want to >> bother memorising a new name for a new wife? There were a lot of women > about >> with a limited selection of names. Perhaps it was more a case of their >> parents not bothering to be inventive when a new girl was born so >> creating >> and perpetuating a limited selection? It certainly is a gift when a child >> was given a name unique in her locality and particularly if the family > then >> adopted it for later generations. But the same name for subsequent wives > of >> the same man raises all sorts of questions the answers to which I can't > see >> how we can ever discover. >> >> Audrey >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:23 PM >> Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years >> >> >> > In message <[email protected] >> > online.co.uk>, Yvonne Purdy <[email protected]> writes >> >>Dear all, >> >> >> >>Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? >> >> >> >>I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is >> >>this >> >>actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips >> >>with >> >>this. >> > It should be old style and therefore 1569 in modern terms. However, be >> > wary that if this is from a transcribed version of a register, it is >> > quite possible that the date has been adjusted. Early transcriptions >> > (and some done for LDS) do correct the date to modern style, whereas >> > the >> > later transcribers mostly followed the convention of putting '1568/9', >> > to make it quite clear what was actually written and intended. >> > A full printed transcription will state this at the beginning, but, of >> > course, if you are using the IGI/Family Search, there is no way of >> > telling, since no single convention was followed (i.e. some >> > transcribers >> > knew about old/new style, some didn't, some copied from old >> > transcriptions without noticing which was used. >> > It can be quite difficult, just gathering names from a transcript, >> > because a lot of men married a second (even a third) wife with the same >> > name as the first, to avoid having to memorise something new. >> > -- >> > Eve McLaughlin >> > >> > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians >> > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society >> > >> > >> > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- >> > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to >> > [email protected] >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: > 21/07/2006 >> > >> > >> >> >> ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: >> http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > [email protected] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > >

Such coincidences still happen without any deliberate intention - my late husband married two Rosemarys, me and his first wife, and his brother married two Gillians - ok in his case his very first wife was Venetia but still ... in this family it was the norm! But I suspect Eve was being a little - umm - would flippant fit? Ros ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > As a matter of interest, how do you know that these men didn't want to > bother memorising a new name for a new wife? There were a lot of women about > with a limited selection of names. Perhaps it was more a case of their > parents not bothering to be inventive when a new girl was born so creating > and perpetuating a limited selection? It certainly is a gift when a child > was given a name unique in her locality and particularly if the family then > adopted it for later generations. But the same name for subsequent wives of > the same man raises all sorts of questions the answers to which I can't see > how we can ever discover. > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:23 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > > > > In message <[email protected] > > online.co.uk>, Yvonne Purdy <[email protected]> writes > >>Dear all, > >> > >>Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? > >> > >>I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is this > >>actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips > >>with > >>this. > > It should be old style and therefore 1569 in modern terms. However, be > > wary that if this is from a transcribed version of a register, it is > > quite possible that the date has been adjusted. Early transcriptions > > (and some done for LDS) do correct the date to modern style, whereas the > > later transcribers mostly followed the convention of putting '1568/9', > > to make it quite clear what was actually written and intended. > > A full printed transcription will state this at the beginning, but, of > > course, if you are using the IGI/Family Search, there is no way of > > telling, since no single convention was followed (i.e. some transcribers > > knew about old/new style, some didn't, some copied from old > > transcriptions without noticing which was used. > > It can be quite difficult, just gathering names from a transcript, > > because a lot of men married a second (even a third) wife with the same > > name as the first, to avoid having to memorise something new. > > -- > > Eve McLaughlin > > > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH >

On a slightly different tack, I have 4 generations of Joseph Durose, and all married a wife called Elizabeth. Very hard to sort out, especially as at times more than one generation were reproducing. In fact I only think there are four, there could only be three. it hard to get to grips with Liz > >As a matter of interest, how do you know that these men didn't want to >bother memorising a new name for a new wife? There were a lot of women >about >with a limited selection of names. Perhaps it was more a case of their >parents not bothering to be inventive when a new girl was born so creating >and perpetuating a limited selection? It certainly is a gift when a child >was given a name unique in her locality and particularly if the family then >adopted it for later generations. But the same name for subsequent wives of >the same man raises all sorts of questions the answers to which I can't see >how we can ever discover. > >Audrey > >

As a matter of interest, how do you know that these men didn't want to bother memorising a new name for a new wife? There were a lot of women about with a limited selection of names. Perhaps it was more a case of their parents not bothering to be inventive when a new girl was born so creating and perpetuating a limited selection? It certainly is a gift when a child was given a name unique in her locality and particularly if the family then adopted it for later generations. But the same name for subsequent wives of the same man raises all sorts of questions the answers to which I can't see how we can ever discover. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > In message <[email protected] > online.co.uk>, Yvonne Purdy <[email protected]> writes >>Dear all, >> >>Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? >> >>I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is this >>actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips >>with >>this. > It should be old style and therefore 1569 in modern terms. However, be > wary that if this is from a transcribed version of a register, it is > quite possible that the date has been adjusted. Early transcriptions > (and some done for LDS) do correct the date to modern style, whereas the > later transcribers mostly followed the convention of putting '1568/9', > to make it quite clear what was actually written and intended. > A full printed transcription will state this at the beginning, but, of > course, if you are using the IGI/Family Search, there is no way of > telling, since no single convention was followed (i.e. some transcribers > knew about old/new style, some didn't, some copied from old > transcriptions without noticing which was used. > It can be quite difficult, just gathering names from a transcript, > because a lot of men married a second (even a third) wife with the same > name as the first, to avoid having to memorise something new. > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > >

In message <[email protected] online.co.uk>, Yvonne Purdy <[email protected]> writes >Dear all, > >Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? > >I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is this >actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips with >this. It should be old style and therefore 1569 in modern terms. However, be wary that if this is from a transcribed version of a register, it is quite possible that the date has been adjusted. Early transcriptions (and some done for LDS) do correct the date to modern style, whereas the later transcribers mostly followed the convention of putting '1568/9', to make it quite clear what was actually written and intended. A full printed transcription will state this at the beginning, but, of course, if you are using the IGI/Family Search, there is no way of telling, since no single convention was followed (i.e. some transcribers knew about old/new style, some didn't, some copied from old transcriptions without noticing which was used. It can be quite difficult, just gathering names from a transcript, because a lot of men married a second (even a third) wife with the same name as the first, to avoid having to memorise something new. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Hi Audrey >> I think the callendar was modernised in 1757 but you'd have to check the precise year. << Actually 1752 - which also lost 11 days in September to bring our calendar back into line with the one in use on the Continent. However the Government did not want to loose any tax which is why our tax year still begins on April 5th.....:-) Kind regards Polly Thankful that it has just started to rain here in Herefordshire!

If you are looking at the original parish register, it should be organised in the right years for its time. However, if you are consulting someone's transcription, they may have altered the years into the modern callendar. If a modern transcription, look at the preamble to see if they have explained this. The old year ended on 24th March and new year's day was 25th March. If you are quoting an old date, you write it, for example, 28th February 1568/69. This shows that you know the modern date but are aware of the old callendar. It's all quite easy when you get into it. I think the callendar was modernised in 1757 but you'd have to check the precise year. Good luck. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yvonne Purdy" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 7:15 PM Subject: [OEL] Old and New style years > Dear all, > > Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? > > I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is this > actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips > with > this. > > It's important to me to get this right to date children from one marriage > before the next marriage. > > Thank you for any help. > Regards, > Yvonne > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/389 - Release Date: 14/07/2006 > >

Dear all, Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is this actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips with this. It's important to me to get this right to date children from one marriage before the next marriage. Thank you for any help. Regards, Yvonne

Yvonne There's a good explanation on this webpage: _http://www.genfair.com/dates.htm_ (http://www.genfair.com/dates.htm) Your date is either 28 February 1567/8 or 28 February 1568/9 but without checking the original register you will not be able to tell. It all depends on how the person who did the transcribing chose to record the date. Debbie Kennett In a message dated 21/07/2006 19:16:02 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Dear all, Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is this actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips with this. It's important to me to get this right to date children from one marriage before the next marriage. Thank you for any help. Regards, Yvonne