Old Style Calendars

[Ken Boyce]

Forgetting the devine right of Kings (to have their own calendars) and the fact that England was out of step with most of the world for many years and just dealing with UK internal sources what is the feeling regarding the affects of the pre 1752 calender

Except for the lapses on my part when browsing a long transcription and inadvertantly getting screwed up in the wrong year I can't recall ever having a serious problem - however - what gochars lay ahead as I venture deeper into pre 1800 territory

For instance are all of the classical indexes (Pallot, Phillimore, Boyd, Harleian, Hallen, IGI, etc) transcribed and indexed as per the original registers warts and all

What do the voices of experience have to say

Regards

[Guy Etchells]

As long as you only use the transcripts as a guide to what records may be available there will be no problem.
Many of the mentioned resources jump between the old and new calendar but any serious researcher will check out the original record as a matter of course.

I assume that you do of course have a copy of the best calendar available for family historians - Calisto.
http://homepages.tesco.net/%7Ejk.calisto/calisto/index.htm

Cheers
Guy

[jeeb]

Hi Ken,
You make a good point here and I think many researchers have been baffled by the Roman Calendar dates in the past.
Most of the main indexes you refer to use the Romanic date. This does not apply to Pallot's Marriage Index of course as that index starts 1780.
I have done a lot of indexing in the past and was always taught to write as such - 1660/1. That basically means a marriage 1st Feb 1660 in the Roman Calendar was indexed as 1st Feb 1660/1. This in itself can confuse someone not aware of the rule.

Jeremy