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

No, the point is that countries like England were using the same calendar in, say, 1450 as they were in 1750 and double dating should be used for both centuries. At any rate, I'll stick with what the professionals are doing in the scholarly journals rather than go by mailing list opinions. I cited only one article from one journal but there are many more as the better informed genealogists are aware. Jim Bullock Littleton, Colorado -----Original Message----- From: rootsmagic-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:rootsmagic-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Drew Smith Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 4:43 PM 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 the message