What do people do with dates in January to March before 17xx?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Before 17xx, the year ran from April to March - in other words, January
to March were listed under the same year as the _preceding_ April to
December.

How do most people here record dates in those months - by modern style,
or by the style in use at the time in question?

Arguably, you could choose one, and for events in those three months,
just add a note about the situation. That's what I've done, though I
haven't been that consistent in which I choose. But one thing that can
cause (minor) problems is that if you use the then-current as your main
choice, any calculations (of age etc.) that your genealogy software does
can be out. If you choose the modern style - assigning January to March
the same year as the following April - they don't agree with old
documents.

I'd be interested to hear what others do.

(There's also the matter of when they switched from Julian to Gregorian
- 175x was it? - and skipped most of September to get things back in
line; but I think most of us just use the dates as recorded, as it'd be
just too difficult to do otherwise. And that was just a one-off anyway.)

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Before 17xx, the year ran from April to March - in other words, January
to March were listed under the same year as the _preceding_ April to
December.
How do most people here record dates in those months - by modern style,
or by the style in use at the time in question?
Arguably, you could choose one, and for events in those three months,
just add a note about the situation. That's what I've done, though I
haven't been that consistent in which I choose. But one thing that can
cause (minor) problems is that if you use the then-current as your main
choice, any calculations (of age etc.) that your genealogy software does
can be out. If you choose the modern style - assigning January to March
the same year as the following April - they don't agree with old documents.
I'd be interested to hear what others do.

I use daouble-dating - eg, 08 January 1744/45. The program I use,
Legacy, allows for that.

[john]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Before 17xx, the year ran from April to March - in other words,
January to March were listed under the same year as the _preceding_
April to December.
How do most people here record dates in those months - by modern
style, or by the style in use at the time in question?
Arguably, you could choose one, and for events in those three months,
just add a note about the situation. That's what I've done, though I
haven't been that consistent in which I choose. But one thing that can
cause (minor) problems is that if you use the then-current as your
main choice, any calculations (of age etc.) that your genealogy
software does can be out. If you choose the modern style - assigning
January to March the same year as the following April - they don't
agree with old documents.
I'd be interested to hear what others do.

I use daouble-dating - eg, 08 January 1744/45.  The program I use,
Legacy, allows for that.

The problem is not even that simple as different countries changed from
"Old Styles" at different times.
Best to record the date as it is given in the cited document (which may
be a double date). It won't confuse anyone looking at the data at a
different time and thinking there is an error somewhere. Then, if you
think it is necessary, add a note.
There is a good explanation here:
https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=4824&p=topics.researchresources.genealogy-20-help

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <qijbv9$7nc$***@gioia.aioe.org>, john
<***@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> writes:
[]

Post by john
The problem is not even that simple as different countries changed from
"Old Styles" at different times.

Not to mention the Jewish, Chinese, and probably other calendars (-:. I
was only talking about England! (I don't know even whether other parts
of GB/UK did the same.)

Post by john
Best to record the date as it is given in the cited document (which may
be a double date). It won't confuse anyone looking at the data at a

My software (Brother's Keeper) will accept any string in the date field,
but will only treat it as a date that it can do sums on if it is entered
in a fixed format. (You can choose one of about ten formats, and I think
can choose to change which one you're using and it'll convert. I think
if you do that it ignores any that were just a random string anyway.)

Jenny, if you enter a double-date in Legacy, does it still do sums OK
(e. g. age at death)?

Post by john
different time and thinking there is an error somewhere. Then, if you
think it is necessary, add a note.
https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=4824&p=topics.rese
archresources.genealogy-20-help

I read a discussion thread - interesting - when I clicked that.

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jenny, if you enter a double-date in Legacy, does it still do sums OK
(e. g. age at death)?

Yes! (1) I just looked at someone who was baptised on -8 March 1747/48
and buried on 19 March 1832 and his calculated age at burial is given as 84.

(1) I expect I'm safe to use the exclamation mark here. In another
place recently I told someone (s)he was in the right place for queries
"... so ask your question!" and got severely reprimanded by someone else
for being so rude, because apparently my use of that punctuation was
offensive!!

[Evertjan.]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jenny, if you enter a double-date in Legacy, does it still do sums OK
(e. g. age at death)?

Yes! (1) I just looked at someone who was baptised on -8 March 1747/48
and buried on 19 March 1832 and his calculated age at burial is given as 84.
(1) I expect I'm safe to use the exclamation mark here. In another
place recently I told someone (s)he was in the right place for queries
"... so ask your question!" and got severely reprimanded by someone else
for being so rude, because apparently my use of that punctuation was
offensive!!

Sayings aren't intrinsicly offensive,
they may be held to be offensive.

So that is for the receiver to feel and decide,
so only a problem for the sender if he/she agrees,
or if there is an emotional bond between them.

So on Usenet, or even on Facebook and Twitter,
while barking is legal, better feel like the wrong tree.

[This seems to be different in transponderland,
but we are overhere]

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jenny, if you enter a double-date in Legacy, does it still do sums OK
(e. g. age at death)?

Yes! (1)  I just looked at someone who was baptised on -8 March 1747/48
and buried on 19 March 1832 and his calculated age at burial is given as 84.
(1) I expect I'm safe to use the exclamation mark here.  In another
place recently I told someone (s)he was in the right place for queries
"... so ask your question!" and got severely reprimanded by someone else
for being so rude, because apparently my use of that punctuation was
offensive!!

There was a recent story (silly season filler no doubt) to the effect
that 'young folk' regard a full stop (period) as somewhat offensive.

It seems that in the various forms of messaging they use, punctuation is
usually omitted. Hence if someone actually uses a full stop, they begin
to wonder quite what is being hinted at.

[Ian Goddard]

I usually convert to modern as any non-historically aware S/W then sorts
them correctly. It might be a good idea to note that if you're
publishing an article based on it; in fact it might be a good idea to
tell the reader what your convention is whatever you choose to do
although if your use the 1702/3 or 1702-3 options it should be clear to
the reader (except for those unfamiliar with the hole concept who may
still be puzzled).

The double year format seems to have been used in historical writing for
a good while and even in original sources a lot of the time so the most
confusing is to silently adopt the old-style start of year with just a
four digit number. I've come across that once when a writer in the
Antiquarian was publishing burials in priories. Without quoting in full
(grrr!) he gave the dates of a will of a knight and its probate in four
digit form apparently a few months before the last royal command sent to
him.

As to the changeover in England:

cal 9 1752
September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Ian

[Tony Proctor]

I usually convert to modern as any non-historically aware S/W then sorts them correctly.  It might be a good idea to note that if you're publishing an
article based on it; in fact it might be a good idea to tell the reader what your convention is whatever you choose to do although if your use the
1702/3 or 1702-3 options it should be clear to the reader (except for those unfamiliar with the hole concept who may still be puzzled).
The double year format seems to have been used in historical writing for a good while and even in original sources a lot of the time so the most
confusing is to silently adopt the old-style start of year with just a four digit number.  I've come across that once when a writer in the Antiquarian
was publishing burials in priories.  Without quoting in full (grrr!) he gave the dates of a will of a knight and its probate in four digit form
apparently a few months before the last royal command sent to him.
cal 9 1752
   September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
       1  2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Ian

Converting to Gregorian helps with sorting, Ian, but it can lead to confusion elsewhere (e.g. see my comments in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edmund_Cartwright#Lineage_and_Birth and the "(cont.)" section lower down).

I would much prefer that software allowed you to keep the date as found in the associated evidence, but supplement it with a calculated modern
equivalent. This approach would also help with more esoteric ancient calendars where a conversion is not going to be spot-on, and where a
re-calculation may be required if new information emerges.

Tony Proctor