Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    DaveinInskip
    Guest

    Default Upholland Burials

    Ellizabeth d. of Thomas Winstanley of Billinge Chapell 3 Feb 1663
    Elline Nayler of Holland More 10 Feb 1663
    Thomas s. of Hugh Crosse of Daltone dyed in Lathom 29 Feb 1663
    Elizabeth Holland of Holland 29 Feb 1663
    1664.
    Henerey s. of James Withinton of Orrell 11 Mar 1664
    William Asshorst of Pemmertone 7 Mar 1664
    Aprell none
    Ellizabeth d. of John Holland of Dalton 3 May 1664
    Margrate w. of James Wates of Wiggaine 6 May 1664


    Hello Scribes,would anyone care to comment on the above entries,with particular attention to the dates.
    I am one who follows the code "enter what you see" but think that I am in fact giving wrong info here ,as has the scribe who wrote this list.

    Up to 29 Feb 1663 I agree with,but when it comes to 11 Mar 1664 the only way I can enter this is 1664/5,which to me seems to be jumping forward 12 months.

    So I enter 11 march 1664/5 and 07 march 1664/5,but then go back to 1664.

    All this gives me the impression that the 2 Mar dates should in fact be 1663,but to even put this in the notes suggests that I am making an assumpion.

    Before I stick 1000 lines onto the main file perhaps I could get other scribes thoughts.

    Bye for now
    Dave in Inskip

  2. #2
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    819

    Default

    Hi,
    For the recording of BMDs the Church year ran from Lady Day (Feb/Mar of one) to Lady Day (Feb/Mar of the next year)
    As this, like Easter is/was a bit of a moveable feast a lot of early records covered the Feb and Mar entries by listing them as 1663/64 for example to cover the period Lady Day to Lady Day.
    I have come across it many times in early Parish Records. Not quite sure when they stopped doing it though.
    Emeltee

  3. #3
    DaveinInskip
    Guest

    Default

    emeltee, many thanks for your replies and your comments, but to be honest I am more baffled than ever.

    It was kind of you to answer my request for help,but not the sort of answer I expected.

    I was expecting for someone to say,yes I do it this way,or I come across it a lot,or ?????

    Finbar,I had a go at the link,which hurt my brain,sorry about that.

    emeltee,can I suggest that where you are looking in the list is not 1663/1664,
    but is the start of a new year in the book,as has happened with each new year previously,I was under the impression that 1663/4 was only a WinREG way of covering the problem,and that 25 Mar was the cut off date,certainly this is how WinREG works.

    I think I shall continue on my way entering just what I see.

    I'll give it a few more days,I can easily go back and alter them in needs be.

    Thanks again,

    Dave in Inskip

  4. #4
    Geoffers
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveinInskip
    1664.
    Henerey s. of James Withinton of Orrell 11 Mar 1664
    I am not connected with freereg so this answer may be wholly wrong as far as they are concerned.

    If the entry appears as you have typed it - i.e as the first entry after a heading of 1664 and other entries appear to be recorded roughly in chonrological order, then I would record it as 1664 - not as 1664/5. You might add a note that it is the first burial to appear in 1664.

    The only entries which I would record as 1664/5 being those at the end of the ecclesiastical year and falling into January, February and March before Easter in 1665.

  5. #5
    Mike Fry
    Guest

    Smile Double-dating and WinREG

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffers View Post
    I am not connected with freereg so this answer may be wholly wrong as far as they are concerned.

    If the entry appears as you have typed it - i.e as the first entry after a heading of 1664 and other entries appear to be recorded roughly in chonrological order, then I would record it as 1664 - not as 1664/5. You might add a note that it is the first burial to appear in 1664.

    The only entries which I would record as 1664/5 being those at the end of the ecclesiastical year and falling into January, February and March before Easter in 1665.
    Perhaps I should chime in here at this point I am connected with FreeREG. In fact I designed and developed WinREG, with an immense amount of input from Kirk Dawson.

    As far as we're concerned, Lady Day doesn't move about the calendar. It's always March 25th. Easter always moves because it's based on a lunar calendar, but Lady Day was and always has been, fixed. Are you perhaps getting mixed up with Mothering Sunday, which is linked with Easter?

    Consequently, ecclesiastical years (and the legal year) always ran from March 25th through to March 24th. WinREG takes this into account when validating dates in the range Jan 1st to March 24th for the years preceding 1752. For these dates, double-dating is used. The process is simple. Add one to the entered year and append to the end. So, if you enter the year as 1664, WinREG will convert it to 1664/5.

    Your clerk or churchwarden or (looking at the dates) the Register, may have entered these dates at a much later time, well after the Restoration and could in fact, have conceivably entered them post-1752. In which case what he entered was correct at the time he entered it. However, the year should have been 1663/4.

    Just to make things even less clear, New Years Day was generally accepted as being Jan 1st, well before the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar in 1752.

  6. #6
    Geoffers
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks for clearing up what freereg does in these circumstances

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Fry
    Your clerk or churchwarden or (looking at the dates) the Register, may have entered these dates at a much later time, well after the Restoration and could in fact, have conceivably entered them post-1752. In which case what he entered was correct at the time he entered it. However, the year should have been 1663/4.
    The problem there is that this is second guessing what may have happened. I have seen many registers in NE Norfolk (pre1752) where the first entry of a new year precedes Lady Day. Either entries have been noted as being in a new year from 1st January (e.g. Buxton, Nfk early years of 1700's); or from dates in March other than Lady Day (e.g. Sloley, Aylsham, Horstead, Coltishall, etc). So, the first entry for a new year appears to be recorded as for example, 16th March 1680. The form of handwriting frequently remains consistent and it would appear that entries have not been added later.

    Some of the entries that I indexed for the Norfolk Transcription Archive and which I allowed Kirk Dawson to put on the Norfolk part of freereg fall into this category.

    This of course just reinforces the fact that freereg should only be used as a guide and to then check original registers. I believe that freereg has some such warning.

  7. #7
    DaveinInskip
    Guest

    Default UPHOLLAND Burials

    To Mike Fry and Geoffers,my thanks for your input on this one,I think from what I read from Mike that I shall continue as previously.

    Like Geoffers,I appreciate the WinREG view,straight from the horses mouth, as the say.

    So I think we'll can this one closed now,

    Thanks again for all comments

    keep scribbling

    Dave in inskip

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: