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 On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Jim Bullock <j.b.bullock@comcast.net> wrote: > I'm not sure why you need an example, but the most recent occurrence of the > problem was when I was entering data from "The American Genealogist" vol. > 85, Jan 2011, entitled "A Fresh Look at the Parentage of 'Mayflower' > Passenger Joan (Hurst) Tilley" by Eugene Cole Zubrinsky, FASG. There are > several instances in this article where double dating is used for dates > prior to 1583/4. One example is the baptism of Joan (Hurst) Tilley which > occurred 13 Mar 1567/8. Another was the probate date of her grandfather > John Marshe's will which was 15 Feb 1558/9. There is no go reason why we > shouldn't be able to have these double dates recognized by RM. > > Jim Bullock > > -----Original Message----- > From: rootsmagic-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:rootsmagic-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Drew Smith > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 8:17 PM > To: rootsmagic-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [RMagic] Double Dating before 17th Century > > Jim, > > Can you provide an example of this? > > Drew Smith > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Jim Bullock <j.b.bullock@comcast.net> wrote: >> This is an apparent flaw in RM. The scholarly journals certainly use > double >> dating before 1583/4.

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

There was no Gregorian calendar before Pope Gregory XIII initiated it in 1582. Before that there was only the Julian calendar so there would be no need for double dating. There would be no need for double dating if everyone had jumped to the Gregorian calendar at the same time. But many of the protestant and distant countries used the old Julian calendar for centuries. There are some countries which don't use either one yet. Alfred ====== Jim Bullock 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 >