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: MaggieMole@aol.com > 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> I am sure it is a very excellent transcription. It is clear that he must have applied the New Style dating to all events before 1752. This is how it should be. However, William Briggs probably assumed that everyone knew what he meant! He was by no means alone in this. I can well remember looking at some indexed parish register entries at the North Yorkshire RO at Northallerton and having to ask an archivist member of staff whether they were Old Style or New Style. She told me all their indexes were converted to New Style - but the point was, I shouldn't have had to ask! It should have been stated quite clearly. -- 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