Suggest that folks go to wikipedia and read about the Gregorian calendar. And no froth and discussion about the accuracy of wikipedia. Just a source for some interesting historical info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar Need to reread this. I always wonder about the 23 days that were lost, am I dealing with the middle of February or a March event.... Jinny Angelis > From: drewsmithtpa@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:42:54 -0400 > To: rootsmagic-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [RMagic] Double Dating before 17th Century > > Jim, > > The point is, *no* country (neither Catholic nor Protestant) was using > the Gregorian Calendar prior to 1582, so no event that transpired > prior to that date would have been written under double dating. It > would have had only one possible, unambiguous date. > > Drew Smith > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Jim Bullock <j.b.bullock@comcast.net> wrote: > > It's irrelevant that the Pope adopted the Gregorian calendar when he did > > because the Protestant countries like England did not. They were still > > using the same calendar in 1750 that they did in 1550 or 1450, so double > > dating should be used in those earlier centuries for English ancestors. It > > would depend on the country that would determine which calendar was in use. > > (Some still use the Julian calendar.) > > > > Jim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rootsmagic-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:rootsmagic-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Drew Smith > > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 2:34 PM > > To: rootsmagic-users@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [RMagic] Double Dating before 17th Century > > > > Jim, > > > > I wanted to see how the scholarly journal was handling it. The double > > dating in that example prior to 1583 doesn't really make sense. The > > Gregorian Calendar was not in use prior to 1583, so the 1567/1568 date > > would need to be listed correctly as 1567 (1568 didn't begin until 25 > > March), and the other date would have been 1558 (for the same reason). > > > > So the reason that RM wouldn't have those double dates recognized is > > that they would be incorrect. > > > > I would put in the correct dates (the earlier years) and then you > > could explain in a note that they were listed as "double dates" in the > > article. > > > > Drew Smith > > > =================================== > RM list Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/ROOTSMAGIC-USERS/ > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search?path=ROOTSMAGIC-USERS > WISH LIST: http://www.rootsmagic.com/forums/ BLOG: http://blog.rootsmagic.com/ > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSMAGIC-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message