From: GibbonsMar@aol.com > Roy, thanks for your insight and help. The dates could very well be > from a transcription of the records. They came to me from a > professional researcher in Yorkshire. > > Martin Gibbons> Martin In that case, the researcher has undoubtedly transcribed the records from the registers and applied the New Style dating. This is, in fact, the correct thing to do so that you are in no confusion. However, it would have been helpful if he had also supplied an explanation as an annotated footnote or something similar! -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

From: GibbonsMar@aol.com > Roy, > Dates were from the Mirfield parish registers. > > Martin Gibbons > > > In a message dated 12/31/2007 12:06:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes: > > From: GibbonsMar@aol.com > > > Roy, > > I have these christenings in MIrfield: > > Joshua Hirst January 1 1681/82 (St. Mary the Virgin Church) > > Joshua Hirst, Jr. January 1 1716/17 (Castle Hill Hall) > > Martha Hirst January 25, 17178/18 > > Alice Hirst February 4, 1720/21 > > Were these dated due to another calendar correction? > > > > Martin Gibbons > > Cincinnati, Ohio, USA> > > No. Those entries are in New Style that was adopted AFTER 1752. May I > ask where they come from, since it looks to me as if they are > transcribed from registers and someone has taken it upon themselves > to attribute the New Style dating? This does sometimes happen with > transcribing and indexing. > > Are they from a printed transcribed register, BTs or CD-ROM of > printed registers?> Martin I think you must mean that they are from a TRANSCRIPTION of the registers, surely, not the originals? It is certainly the case that most European catholic countries had gone over to the Gregorian Calendar in 1582, far sooner than we did, and there were some instances of both the old and new calendars being used alongside one another in advance of the official changeover (see Mike Spathaky's article as recommended by Colin Hinson). However, I find it most unlikely that an incumbent would have been applying this dating as early as the 1680s when it didn't happen officially until 1752. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

'ello Roy, I have an odd one, but probably true ..... Benjamin DYSON, son of John DYSON and Martha (MALLINSON) Bapt 15 Sep 1751 at Hfx PC, and buried 31 Jan 1751/52 at Hfx. PC. Regards, Gordon. ======================================== Message Received: Dec 31 2007, 04:06 PM From: "Roy Stockdill" To: west-riding@rootsweb.com Cc: Subject: Re: [WRY] Which is correct? IGI or English Parish Registers From: "Roy Stockdill" > Further to my explanation of the calendar changes of 1752, I have > been perusing a substantial number of parish registers on an Ancestry > CD to see whether I could find any interesting or curious entries as a > result. > > This is not from Yorkshire but Nottinghamshire. However, it appears on > the same CD as the Yorkshire West Riding records..... > > Benjamin COW, blacksmith, 38, bachelor, and Hannah PARKER, both of the > parish of St Nicholas, Nottingham, took out a licence to marry on 2nd > September 1752 (Nottinghamshire marriage licence abstracts). > > They married at St Nicholas, Nottingham, on Sep 14 1752, according to > the registers. This date also appears in the IGI (private submission). > > In fact, they married the very next day after getting the licence, > since in 1752 Sept 2 was followed immediately by Sep 14 ! > > I have often wondered if anyone has any occurrences from the non- > existent period Sep 3-Sep 13 1752 in their records? Did any incumbents > ignore the fact that 11 days were lost and insert the dates that never > officially existed? Since we know that there were some vicars who > stuck to the Old Style year, it seems possible there were a few who, > whether by accident, forgetfulness or design, inserted the wrong dates > in September!> I've now found an interesting comment from the incumbent of Danby-in- Cleveland in Yorkshire North Riding. He wrote the following in his registers..... "02 Sep 1752 The new Stile or Gregorian Account took Place by Act of Parliament; so eleven Days were cut off or annihilated, & the 02 Sep 1752 was reckoned the 02 Sep 1752 or 13 Sep 1752 , the next Day the 14 Sep 1752 & so on, this was well enough relished till Christmas came, When some wo'd syea a great many keep old Christmas, & some New; Nay the superstitious Notion was so prevalent amongst our Moore Folks that scarce above 40 made their appearance at the Sacrament on new Xtmas Day which I could attribute to Nothing but superstition & Bigotry." So it seems his parishioners, at least, were confused as to when to celebrate Christmas and New Year! I wonder how long this lasted and how long it was before the new calendar came to be totally accepted by the vast majority? -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WEST-RIDING-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi folks, You may be interested in the article by Mike Spathaky on the subject of Old and New style dates at: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/dates.html Best wishes, Colin Hinson In the village of Blunham in Bedfordshire U.K. Webmaster for the Genuki Yorkshire pages: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ Old and Rare Yorkshire Books on searchable CDroms: http://cdroms.blunham.com/

hI One should remember these lost dates, and also that the world did not adopt the same calender at the same time so ship trips etc can be weeks longer, shorter than expected. Deaths abroasd can be recorded localy in one calender and the UK under another. regards Terry Norway "Happy New Year" > From: roy.stockdill@btinternet.com > To: west-riding@rootsweb.com > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:08:08 +0000 > Subject: Re: [WRY] Which is correct? IGI or English Parish Registers > > From: "Roy Stockdill" > > >> Further to my explanation of the calendar changes of 1752, I have >> been perusing a substantial number of parish registers on an Ancestry> CD to see whether I could find any interesting or curious entries as a >> result. >> >> This is not from Yorkshire but Nottinghamshire. However, it appears on >> the same CD as the Yorkshire West Riding records..... >> >> Benjamin COW, blacksmith, 38, bachelor, and Hannah PARKER, both of the >> parish of St Nicholas, Nottingham, took out a licence to marry on 2nd >> September 1752 (Nottinghamshire marriage licence abstracts). >> >> They married at St Nicholas, Nottingham, on Sep 14 1752, according to >> the registers. This date also appears in the IGI (private submission). >> >> In fact, they married the very next day after getting the licence, >> since in 1752 Sept 2 was followed immediately by Sep 14 ! >> >> I have often wondered if anyone has any occurrences from the non- >> existent period Sep 3-Sep 13 1752 in their records? Did any incumbents >> ignore the fact that 11 days were lost and insert the dates that never >> officially existed? Since we know that there were some vicars who >> stuck to the Old Style year, it seems possible there were a few who, >> whether by accident, forgetfulness or design, inserted the wrong dates >> in September!> > > I've now found an interesting comment from the incumbent of Danby-in- > Cleveland in Yorkshire North Riding. He wrote the following in his > registers..... > > "02 Sep 1752 The new Stile or Gregorian Account took Place by Act of > Parliament; so eleven Days were cut off or annihilated, & the > 02 Sep 1752 was reckoned the 02 Sep 1752 or 13 Sep 1752 > , the next Day the 14 Sep 1752 & so on, this was well enough > relished till Christmas came, When some wo'd syea a great > many keep old Christmas, & some New; Nay the superstitious > Notion was so prevalent amongst our Moore Folks that scarce > above 40 made their appearance at the Sacrament on new > Xtmas Day which I could attribute to Nothing but superstition & > Bigotry." > > So it seems his parishioners, at least, were confused as to when > to celebrate Christmas and New Year! I wonder how long this > lasted and how long it was before the new calendar came to be > totally accepted by the vast majority? > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: > www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WEST-RIDING-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

From: GibbonsMar@aol.com > Roy, > I have these christenings in MIrfield: > Joshua Hirst January 1 1681/82 (St. Mary the Virgin Church) > Joshua Hirst, Jr. January 1 1716/17 (Castle Hill Hall) > Martha Hirst January 25, 17178/18 > Alice Hirst February 4, 1720/21 > Were these dated due to another calendar correction? > > Martin Gibbons > Cincinnati, Ohio, USA> No. Those entries are in New Style that was adopted AFTER 1752. May I ask where they come from, since it looks to me as if they are transcribed from registers and someone has taken it upon themselves to attribute the New Style dating? This does sometimes happen with transcribing and indexing. Are they from a printed transcribed register, BTs or CD-ROM of printed registers? -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

From: TERRY HOPKIN- SUNDBY > One should remember these lost dates, and also that the world did not > adopt the same calender at the same time so ship trips etc can be > weeks longer, shorter than expected. Deaths abroasd can be recorded > localy in one calender and the UK under another. regards Terry Norway > "Happy New Year" Good point, Terry! -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

The Mirfield registers are online in Ancestry and are the filmed version of William Brigg's transcriptions, made about 1920. In his preface Mr Brigg makes no reference to the way he has treated dating, but in all other respects it really does seem to be a most faithful copy. I've found it invaluable. Maggie >>In that case, the researcher has undoubtedly transcribed the records from the registers and applied the New Style dating. This is, in fact, the correct thing to do so that you are in no confusion. However, it would have been helpful if he had also supplied an explanation as an annotated footnote or something similar!

From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> > Further to my explanation of the calendar changes of 1752, I have > been perusing a substantial number of parish registers on an Ancestry > CD to see whether I could find any interesting or curious entries as a > result. > > This is not from Yorkshire but Nottinghamshire. However, it appears on > the same CD as the Yorkshire West Riding records..... > > Benjamin COW, blacksmith, 38, bachelor, and Hannah PARKER, both of the > parish of St Nicholas, Nottingham, took out a licence to marry on 2nd > September 1752 (Nottinghamshire marriage licence abstracts). > > They married at St Nicholas, Nottingham, on Sep 14 1752, according to > the registers. This date also appears in the IGI (private submission). > > In fact, they married the very next day after getting the licence, > since in 1752 Sept 2 was followed immediately by Sep 14 ! > > I have often wondered if anyone has any occurrences from the non- > existent period Sep 3-Sep 13 1752 in their records? Did any incumbents > ignore the fact that 11 days were lost and insert the dates that never > officially existed? Since we know that there were some vicars who > stuck to the Old Style year, it seems possible there were a few who, > whether by accident, forgetfulness or design, inserted the wrong dates > in September!> I've now found an interesting comment from the incumbent of Danby-in- Cleveland in Yorkshire North Riding. He wrote the following in his registers..... "02 Sep 1752 The new Stile or Gregorian Account took Place by Act of Parliament; so eleven Days were cut off or annihilated, & the 02 Sep 1752 was reckoned the 02 Sep 1752 or 13 Sep 1752 , the next Day the 14 Sep 1752 & so on, this was well enough relished till Christmas came, When some wo'd syea a great many keep old Christmas, & some New; Nay the superstitious Notion was so prevalent amongst our Moore Folks that scarce above 40 made their appearance at the Sacrament on new Xtmas Day which I could attribute to Nothing but superstition & Bigotry." So it seems his parishioners, at least, were confused as to when to celebrate Christmas and New Year! I wonder how long this lasted and how long it was before the new calendar came to be totally accepted by the vast majority? -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

I haven't located a similar post via a search. I have noticed that the IGI information can be exactly 1 year different to the (say) the English Parish Records: Yorkshire (West Riding) [this is a CD purchased through Ancestry.com). For example: Mary Cardwell, IGI Batch: P009801 has a Christening Date of 3 Feb 1740 (father John Cardwell). Whereas the English Parish Records (Thornhill, West Yorkshire) has the following entry: 03 Feb 1739 Mary the dau: of John Cardwell Junr I believe the above to be the same person. Neverthless, I am sure I have seen similar examples and I wondered (besides the fact that I could have the wrong person) whether anyone else had noticed this or had an explantion. Regards Kingsley Hirst (in NZ)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> To: <west-riding@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [WRY] Which is correct? IGI or English Parish Registers Hi Roy, do not know! but I will keep a look out now that you mention it. A Very Happy New Year to you and yours. Janet your very distant cousin. > Dear Listers > > Further to my explanation of the calendar changes of 1752, I have been > perusing a substantial number of parish registers on an Ancestry CD to > see whether I could find any interesting or curious entries as a result. > > This is not from Yorkshire but Nottinghamshire. However, it appears on > the same CD as the Yorkshire West Riding records..... > > Benjamin COW, blacksmith, 38, bachelor, and Hannah PARKER, both of > the parish of St Nicholas, Nottingham, took out a licence to marry on 2nd > September 1752 (Nottinghamshire marriage licence abstracts). > > They married at St Nicholas, Nottingham, on Sep 14 1752, according to > the registers. This date also appears in the IGI (private submission). > > In fact, they married the very next day after getting the licence, since > in > 1752 Sept 2 was followed immediately by Sep 14 ! > > I have often wondered if anyone has any occurrences from the non- > existent period Sep 3-Sep 13 1752 in their records? Did any incumbents > ignore the fact that 11 days were lost and insert the dates that never > officially existed? Since we know that there were some vicars who stuck > to the Old Style year, it seems possible there were a few who, whether by > accident, forgetfulness or design, inserted the wrong dates in September! > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: > www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WEST-RIDING-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.12/1203 - Release Date: > 30/12/2007 11:27 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 64149 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now!

Dear Listers Further to my explanation of the calendar changes of 1752, I have been perusing a substantial number of parish registers on an Ancestry CD to see whether I could find any interesting or curious entries as a result. This is not from Yorkshire but Nottinghamshire. However, it appears on the same CD as the Yorkshire West Riding records..... Benjamin COW, blacksmith, 38, bachelor, and Hannah PARKER, both of the parish of St Nicholas, Nottingham, took out a licence to marry on 2nd September 1752 (Nottinghamshire marriage licence abstracts). They married at St Nicholas, Nottingham, on Sep 14 1752, according to the registers. This date also appears in the IGI (private submission). In fact, they married the very next day after getting the licence, since in 1752 Sept 2 was followed immediately by Sep 14 ! I have often wondered if anyone has any occurrences from the non- existent period Sep 3-Sep 13 1752 in their records? Did any incumbents ignore the fact that 11 days were lost and insert the dates that never officially existed? Since we know that there were some vicars who stuck to the Old Style year, it seems possible there were a few who, whether by accident, forgetfulness or design, inserted the wrong dates in September! -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Roy, thanks for your insight and help. The dates could very well be from a transcription of the records. They came to me from a professional researcher in Yorkshire. Martin Gibbons In a message dated 12/31/2007 1:06:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes: From: GibbonsMar@aol.com > Roy, > Dates were from the Mirfield parish registers. > > Martin Gibbons > > > In a message dated 12/31/2007 12:06:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes: > > From: GibbonsMar@aol.com > > > Roy, > > I have these christenings in MIrfield: > > Joshua Hirst January 1 1681/82 (St. Mary the Virgin Church) > > Joshua Hirst, Jr. January 1 1716/17 (Castle Hill Hall) > > Martha Hirst January 25, 17178/18 > > Alice Hirst February 4, 1720/21 > > Were these dated due to another calendar correction? > > > > Martin Gibbons > > Cincinnati, Ohio, USA> > > No. Those entries are in New Style that was adopted AFTER 1752. May I > ask where they come from, since it looks to me as if they are > transcribed from registers and someone has taken it upon themselves > to attribute the New Style dating? This does sometimes happen with > transcribing and indexing. > > Are they from a printed transcribed register, BTs or CD-ROM of > printed registers?> Martin I think you must mean that they are from a TRANSCRIPTION of the registers, surely, not the originals? It is certainly the case that most European catholic countries had gone over to the Gregorian Calendar in 1582, far sooner than we did, and there were some instances of both the old and new calendars being used alongside one another in advance of the official changeover (see Mike Spathaky's article as recommended by Colin Hinson). However, I find it most unlikely that an incumbent would have been applying this dating as early as the 1680s when it didn't happen officially until 1752. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WEST-RIDING-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

Roy Thanks for that! Superb info Happy 2008! Geoff in Sevilla > From: roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> To: west-riding@rootsweb.com> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:00:21 +0000> Subject: Re: [WRY] Which is correct? IGI or English Parish Registers> > From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com>> > From: Geoff Watson <geoffwatsone@hotmail.com>> > > > > Did this one year discrepancy continue towards the end of the> > > century - I have several such instances in the 1780'8 and 1790's,> > > all in one parish (Haworth) between January and March.......>> > > > I, too, have noticed this occasionally, though not quite as late as> > that. Certainly, though, in the 1750s and 1760s.> > > > The only explanation I can proffer is a very elderly and> > long-standing, bolshy vicar who refused to accept the new style and> > continued with the old year long after the calendar changes had taken> > place! Some were like that and distinctly resented being told how to> > conduct their parish business.> > > > It might be worth trying to find a list of incumbents of Haworth and> > see whether the man in charge at the time had been there for many> > years.>> > In fact, there is a full list of the incumbents of Haworth from 1654-1995 at > Genuki. It is easily found simply by entering "Vicars of Haworth" into > Google. It reveals a couple of interesting things.....> > The incumbent from 1742 to 1763 was one W Grimshaw, otherwise > William Grimshaw, also known as "Mad Grimshaw" because he was > exceedingly eccentric and zealous and used to tour the village of > Haworth driving people from the pubs and the streets into his church with > a whip, where he subjected them to long hell-and-brimstone sermons! > > I can well imagine that Grimshaw would not have been well disposed to > the new changes in the registers and refused to introduce them. He was > succeeded in 1763 by J Richardson, who was the incumbent for many > years until 1791. Quite possibly he was influenced by "Mad Grimshaw" > and after succeeding him continued to use the old calendar.> > Just enter "Mad Grimshaw+Haworth" into Google and you will find a very > entertaining account of his ministry as the first website that appears. It > seems that in his youth he was a ruffian and drunkard who later > underwent a spiritual transformation and became a zealous missionary > and roving Methodist preacher (close friend of John Wesley) who > travelled about the countryside on a white horse, preaching to thousands.> > --> Roy Stockdill> Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: > www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html> > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about."> OSCAR WILDE> > > > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WEST-RIDING-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Roy, Dates were from the Mirfield parish registers. Martin Gibbons In a message dated 12/31/2007 12:06:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes: From: GibbonsMar@aol.com > Roy, > I have these christenings in MIrfield: > Joshua Hirst January 1 1681/82 (St. Mary the Virgin Church) > Joshua Hirst, Jr. January 1 1716/17 (Castle Hill Hall) > Martha Hirst January 25, 17178/18 > Alice Hirst February 4, 1720/21 > Were these dated due to another calendar correction? > > Martin Gibbons > Cincinnati, Ohio, USA> No. Those entries are in New Style that was adopted AFTER 1752. May I ask where they come from, since it looks to me as if they are transcribed from registers and someone has taken it upon themselves to attribute the New Style dating? This does sometimes happen with transcribing and indexing. Are they from a printed transcribed register, BTs or CD-ROM of printed registers? -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WEST-RIDING-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

No it's the same correction These dates are all prior to Sep 1752 So Joshua Hirst was born 1 Jan 1681 according to the Julian Calendar and Jan 1 1682 according to today's Gregorian) Calendar Etc. Mel Smith Whitby, Ontario, Canada -----Original Message----- From: west-riding-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:west-riding-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of GibbonsMar@aol.com Sent: December 31, 2007 11:44 AM To: west-riding@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [WRY] Which is correct? IGI or English Parish Registers Roy, I have these christenings in MIrfield: Joshua Hirst January 1 1681/82 (St. Mary the Virgin Church) Joshua Hirst, Jr. January 1 1716/17 (Castle Hill Hall) Martha Hirst January 25, 17178/18 Alice Hirst February 4, 1720/21 Were these dated due to another calendar correction? Martin Gibbons Cincinnati, Ohio, USA In a message dated 12/31/2007 11:07:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes: From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> > Further to my explanation of the calendar changes of 1752, I have > been perusing a substantial number of parish registers on an Ancestry > CD to see whether I could find any interesting or curious entries as a > result. > > This is not from Yorkshire but Nottinghamshire. However, it appears on > the same CD as the Yorkshire West Riding records..... > > Benjamin COW, blacksmith, 38, bachelor, and Hannah PARKER, both of the > parish of St Nicholas, Nottingham, took out a licence to marry on 2nd > September 1752 (Nottinghamshire marriage licence abstracts). > > They married at St Nicholas, Nottingham, on Sep 14 1752, according to > the registers. This date also appears in the IGI (private submission). > > In fact, they married the very next day after getting the licence, > since in 1752 Sept 2 was followed immediately by Sep 14 ! > > I have often wondered if anyone has any occurrences from the non- > existent period Sep 3-Sep 13 1752 in their records? Did any incumbents > ignore the fact that 11 days were lost and insert the dates that never > officially existed? Since we know that there were some vicars who > stuck to the Old Style year, it seems possible there were a few who, > whether by accident, forgetfulness or design, inserted the wrong dates > in September!> I've now found an interesting comment from the incumbent of Danby-in- Cleveland in Yorkshire North Riding. He wrote the following in his registers..... "02 Sep 1752 The new Stile or Gregorian Account took Place by Act of Parliament; so eleven Days were cut off or annihilated, & the 02 Sep 1752 was reckoned the 02 Sep 1752 or 13 Sep 1752 , the next Day the 14 Sep 1752 & so on, this was well enough relished till Christmas came, When some wo'd syea a great many keep old Christmas, & some New; Nay the superstitious Notion was so prevalent amongst our Moore Folks that scarce above 40 made their appearance at the Sacrament on new Xtmas Day which I could attribute to Nothing but superstition & Bigotry." So it seems his parishioners, at least, were confused as to when to celebrate Christmas and New Year! I wonder how long this lasted and how long it was before the new calendar came to be totally accepted by the vast majority? -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WEST-RIDING-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WEST-RIDING-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> > From: Geoff Watson <geoffwatsone@hotmail.com> > > > Did this one year discrepancy continue towards the end of the > > century - I have several such instances in the 1780'8 and 1790's, > > all in one parish (Haworth) between January and March.......> > > I, too, have noticed this occasionally, though not quite as late as > that. Certainly, though, in the 1750s and 1760s. > > The only explanation I can proffer is a very elderly and > long-standing, bolshy vicar who refused to accept the new style and > continued with the old year long after the calendar changes had taken > place! Some were like that and distinctly resented being told how to > conduct their parish business. > > It might be worth trying to find a list of incumbents of Haworth and > see whether the man in charge at the time had been there for many > years.> In fact, there is a full list of the incumbents of Haworth from 1654-1995 at Genuki. It is easily found simply by entering "Vicars of Haworth" into Google. It reveals a couple of interesting things..... The incumbent from 1742 to 1763 was one W Grimshaw, otherwise William Grimshaw, also known as "Mad Grimshaw" because he was exceedingly eccentric and zealous and used to tour the village of Haworth driving people from the pubs and the streets into his church with a whip, where he subjected them to long hell-and-brimstone sermons! I can well imagine that Grimshaw would not have been well disposed to the new changes in the registers and refused to introduce them. He was succeeded in 1763 by J Richardson, who was the incumbent for many years until 1791. Quite possibly he was influenced by "Mad Grimshaw" and after succeeding him continued to use the old calendar. Just enter "Mad Grimshaw+Haworth" into Google and you will find a very entertaining account of his ministry as the first website that appears. It seems that in his youth he was a ruffian and drunkard who later underwent a spiritual transformation and became a zealous missionary and roving Methodist preacher (close friend of John Wesley) who travelled about the countryside on a white horse, preaching to thousands. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Roy, I have these christenings in MIrfield: Joshua Hirst January 1 1681/82 (St. Mary the Virgin Church) Joshua Hirst, Jr. January 1 1716/17 (Castle Hill Hall) Martha Hirst January 25, 17178/18 Alice Hirst February 4, 1720/21 Were these dated due to another calendar correction? Martin Gibbons Cincinnati, Ohio, USA In a message dated 12/31/2007 11:07:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes: From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> > Further to my explanation of the calendar changes of 1752, I have > been perusing a substantial number of parish registers on an Ancestry > CD to see whether I could find any interesting or curious entries as a > result. > > This is not from Yorkshire but Nottinghamshire. However, it appears on > the same CD as the Yorkshire West Riding records..... > > Benjamin COW, blacksmith, 38, bachelor, and Hannah PARKER, both of the > parish of St Nicholas, Nottingham, took out a licence to marry on 2nd > September 1752 (Nottinghamshire marriage licence abstracts). > > They married at St Nicholas, Nottingham, on Sep 14 1752, according to > the registers. This date also appears in the IGI (private submission). > > In fact, they married the very next day after getting the licence, > since in 1752 Sept 2 was followed immediately by Sep 14 ! > > I have often wondered if anyone has any occurrences from the non- > existent period Sep 3-Sep 13 1752 in their records? Did any incumbents > ignore the fact that 11 days were lost and insert the dates that never > officially existed? Since we know that there were some vicars who > stuck to the Old Style year, it seems possible there were a few who, > whether by accident, forgetfulness or design, inserted the wrong dates > in September!> I've now found an interesting comment from the incumbent of Danby-in- Cleveland in Yorkshire North Riding. He wrote the following in his registers..... "02 Sep 1752 The new Stile or Gregorian Account took Place by Act of Parliament; so eleven Days were cut off or annihilated, & the 02 Sep 1752 was reckoned the 02 Sep 1752 or 13 Sep 1752 , the next Day the 14 Sep 1752 & so on, this was well enough relished till Christmas came, When some wo'd syea a great many keep old Christmas, & some New; Nay the superstitious Notion was so prevalent amongst our Moore Folks that scarce above 40 made their appearance at the Sacrament on new Xtmas Day which I could attribute to Nothing but superstition & Bigotry." So it seems his parishioners, at least, were confused as to when to celebrate Christmas and New Year! I wonder how long this lasted and how long it was before the new calendar came to be totally accepted by the vast majority? -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WEST-RIDING-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> > Prior to 1752, the year began on March 25 and ended on March 24. > This can cause confusion to newcomers when dealing with events and > dates between Jan 1 and March 24 before 1752 as to which year to > place them in.< Giving this detailed account of the calendar changes brought to my mind a rather amusing incident that occurred at a lecture of mine some years ago! I was describing the effect the calendar changes had on dates between Jan 1 and March 24 before 1752 and how they should be written when suddenly a lady in the audience let out a loud gasp of shock and uttered "Oh my god!" or words to that effect. Thinking she had been taken ill, I stopped speaking and enquired if she was alright. She apologised for her interruption but went on to explain that my description of the calendar changes had produced a sudden solution to a problem which had been puzzling her for some time, i.e. how could an ancestor have been married AFTER his death? !!! I cannot recall the precise dates but it transpired she had had an ancestor who was married in, let us say, the August of 1735 and died in the February of 1735. Of course, the answer was that he had actually died in the following February - i.e. 1736 in modern terms. Afterwards, she couldn't thank me enough for clearing up this mystery which had been baffling her! Thus, you can see how important it is to understand the calendar changes. If possible, you should always try to establish whether a date before 1752 is Old Style or New Style because, as the OP pointed out, it can make a difference of a whole year unless you know what you are doing. When examining the original registers, then there should be no problem. However, it is with transcriptions that problems can arise when you don't know whether the transcriber has taken it upon himself /herself to "correct" the date to the modern one. This is a permanent problem with the IGI. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

From: Geoff Watson <geoffwatsone@hotmail.com> > Did this one year discrepancy continue towards the end of the century > - I have several such instances in the 1780'8 and 1790's, all in one > parish (Haworth) between January and March.......> I, too, have noticed this occasionally, though not quite as late as that. Certainly, though, in the 1750s and 1760s. The only explanation I can proffer is a very elderly and long-standing, bolshy vicar who refused to accept the new style and continued with the old year long after the calendar changes had taken place! Some were like that and distinctly resented being told how to conduct their parish business. It might be worth trying to find a list of incumbents of Haworth and see whether the man in charge at the time had been there for many years. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE