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
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Thread: Upholland Burials
-
14-11-2009, 7:42 PM #1DaveinInskipGuest
Upholland Burials
-
14-11-2009, 7:51 PM #2
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 819
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
-
14-11-2009, 10:15 PM #3DaveinInskipGuest
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
-
14-11-2009, 10:35 PM #4GeoffersGuestOriginally Posted by DaveinInskip
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.
-
15-11-2009, 12:04 PM #5Mike FryGuest
Double-dating and WinREG
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.
-
15-11-2009, 12:43 PM #6GeoffersGuest
Thanks for clearing up what freereg does in these circumstances
Originally Posted by Mike Fry
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.
-
15-11-2009, 2:21 PM #7DaveinInskipGuest
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
Helping you trace your British Family History & British Genealogy.
All times are GMT. The time now is 5:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5
Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.
Bookmarks