I have been translating pages from a manor roll and have discovered an apparent discepancy in the way the regnal dates are written. Often only the regnal date occurs, and I have been happily translating, thinking I had it right. However several of these pages also have the year in numerals, and it doesn't tally with the regnal date. For example, I have the decimo quinto year of the reign of Charles ll, followed by 1663. the same occurs for succeeding years, sixteen, seventeen and so on. The only explanation that I can think of is that the regnal date has been calculated for Charles ll as beginning in 1649, the year of the death of Charles l, and not 1660, the year of Charles ll's acession. This would tally with the numeral dates. Can anyone please tell me if I am right about this, and whether or not it was common paractice? The blurb I have on regnal dates doesn't mention it. With thanks, Alwynne

"Charles II reckoned his regnal years from 30 Jan 1649 (the date of the execution of Charles I) but did not reign in England until his restoration, 29 May 1660. During the Commonwealth public documents were dated according to the year of our Lord. Oliver Cromwell died 3 Sept 1658, richard Cromwell abdicated 25 May 1659, after which the government was carried on by Parliament and the Army until the restoration" Harvey's "The Oxford Companion to English Literature" has useful tables of the Perpetual Calendar at the back, giving regnal years and more. Lambeth Palace convocation of bishops is considering restoring the 1662 or earlier Prayerbook. They may be able to avoid having to include the church services for the restoration of Charles II, Martyrdom of Chas. I, and the deliverance of parliament (Gunpowder Treason) service held on Nov. 5th, which were not abolished till 1859, on the grounds that, although included by Royal Command, they were never actually part of the prayerbook. This argument does not however apply to the touching ceremony for the King's Evil (scrofula), which may entail the Queen in considerable work and expense in hanging gold coins round necks, if the disease is still prevalent. Regnal years have always been at the whim or spite of the monarch. Sotheby's sold a document signed by Queen Jane (who reigned 9 days) in the 70's. But Mary ignored her reignin reckoning her regnal years. There are quite a lot of such confusing anomalies to puzzle the archivist. John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alwynne Mackie" <alwynnem@melbpc.org.au> To: <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:19 PM Subject: [OEL] Charles ll and Regnal Dates >I have been translating pages from a manor roll and have discovered an > apparent discepancy in the way the regnal dates are written. > Often only the regnal date occurs, and I have been happily translating, > thinking I had it right. However several of these pages also have the year > in numerals, and it doesn't tally with the regnal date. For example, I > have > the decimo quinto year of the reign of Charles ll, followed by 1663. the > same occurs for succeeding years, sixteen, seventeen and so on. > The only explanation that I can think of is that the regnal date has been > calculated for Charles ll as beginning in 1649, the year of the death of > Charles l, and not 1660, the year of Charles ll's acession. This would > tally > with the numeral dates. > Can anyone please tell me if I am right about this, and whether or not it > was common paractice? The blurb I have on regnal dates doesn't mention it. > With thanks, > Alwynne > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > __________ NOD32 3443 (20080915) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >