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