On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jim Bullock <j.b.bullock@comcast.net> wrote: > Following December 1450 (as an example), dates in the following months up to > March 25 would have originally been written with the year shown as 1450. > Today we show that as 1450/1 to clarify that those January-March dates were > after December 1450, not before. Otherwise a date such as 4 Feb 1450 would > be mistaken as having occurred before Dec 1450. Jim, I disagree, because as students of history we should recognize that any pre-1583 date in England would have January-March dates happening *after* April-December dates (at least as far back as 1155). It's a matter of understanding European history and the calendar. No clarification is needed. If you're still worried that your audience won't understand, put an explanation in a note field. Drew

Isn't the problem that RootsMagic does not treat January-March dates before 1583 as being later than the April-Dec dates of the same calendar year nor does it recognise dates in the 1451/2 format? That is, the only way to enter a January-March date from the Julian calendar before 1583 and have it sort after the April-Dec dates of the same year is to enter it with the year value of +1, i.e., enter it using the Gregorian calendar, even though that calendar did not exist at the time. In effect, one must enter all dates using the Gregorian calendar in order for them to sort correctly. Thus pre-1583 dates must be converted from Julian to Gregorian at time of entry. I'm not a calendar nor genealogical reporting expert and fortunately do not have any ancestry having such early dates but I empathize with Jim that there is a logical inconsistency: If I can enter Feb 2011/2 and RM assigns a sort date of Feb 2012, why can't I enter Feb 1451/2 and have it equally recognised as a valid date format and assign the sort date of Feb 1452. That 2011/2 date is long removed from the advent of the Gregorian calendar and its overlap with the Julian so why should it be valid and the pre-Gregorian not? Tom -----Original Message----- From: Drew Smith Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:57 PM To: rootsmagic-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [RMagic] Double Dating before 17th Century On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jim Bullock <j.b.bullock@comcast.net> wrote: > Following December 1450 (as an example), dates in the following months up > to > March 25 would have originally been written with the year shown as 1450. > Today we show that as 1450/1 to clarify that those January-March dates > were > after December 1450, not before. Otherwise a date such as 4 Feb 1450 > would > be mistaken as having occurred before Dec 1450. Jim, I disagree, because as students of history we should recognize that any pre-1583 date in England would have January-March dates happening *after* April-December dates (at least as far back as 1155). It's a matter of understanding European history and the calendar. No clarification is needed. If you're still worried that your audience won't understand, put an explanation in a note field. Drew =================================== 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