it's been a long, long time since I went through the old records and my rusty memory needs refreshing. before 1752, the dating in records, especially the months, was different than it is now. I have stumbled across a heretofore unknown individual who belongs in my tree among the old xeroxes of records and digests, and their birth is given as "....ye 7th of ye 12th mo. 1709/10" was this February? March was the first month, correct? thank you. Cornelia

In message <017c01c629ee$f8f26bf0$a13d1c40@your6bvpxyztoq>, Edwin and Cornelia Moore <fenenga@connpoint.net> writes >it's been a long, long time since I went through the old records and my >rusty memory needs refreshing. >before 1752, the dating in records, especially the months, was >different than it is now. >I have stumbled across a heretofore unknown individual who belongs in >my tree among the old xeroxes of records and digests, and their birth >is given as > >"....ye 7th of ye 12th mo. 1709/10" > >was this February? March was the first month, correct? >thank you. >Cornelia > Yes. By modern dating it was 7 February 1710. Before 1 January 1752, the civil year in England began on 25 March. Quaker dating regards the whole of March as 1st Month, though the first 24 days were part of the old year (so one month after the date above was 7th of 1st month 1709/10). Thus, before 1752, the Quaker calendar ran from 1st month (March) through to 12th month (February). A by-product of this was that September-December were 7th-10th months, just as their Latin names suggest that they should be. The calendar change in 1752 in fact took place in two stages. First, New Years Day was moved to 1 January, from the beginning of 1752. Secondly, the famous 11 days were removed from September, to move from the Julian calendar ("Old Style") to the Gregorian calendar ("New Style"). The renumbering of Quaker months (January as 1st month through to December as 12th month) should therefore take place from the beginning - January - of 1752. Human nature being what it is, some people probably got this wrong at the time. The way it worked is well illustrated on the first page of the births register for Sheffield Particular Meeting (Sheffield Archives QR 32), an unsurrendered register started later in the 1750s but containing retrospective entries back to 1749. The registrar has tried to make the position absolutely clear. Consecutive entries read: "Nathaniel, Son of Isaac & Mary Cosins Third Month 5 1751 O.S. Mary, Daughter of John & Sarah Burkitt Seventh Month call'd Septemr 15 1751 O.S. Mary, Daughter of John & Hannah Barnard of Upperthorp Third Month (call'd March) 26 1752 O.S. Martha, Daughter of Wm & Mary Hoyland Sixth Month 29 1752 O.S. Wm, Son of Wm Aldam junr and Mary his Wife Seventh Month 31 1752 O.S. Henry, Son of John and Martha Hirst Eighth Month 13 1752 O.S. Mary, Daughter of John & Mary Holbern Eleventh Month 13 1752 N.S." -- Chris Pitt Lewis