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

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

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 > >