tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post8292572746996301663..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: On the Inexactness of dates in genealogyJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-5522461019728098352018-12-20T06:18:23.041-07:002018-12-20T06:18:23.041-07:00The year should have given people a clue. The '...The year should have given people a clue. The 'Calendar (New Style) Act 1750' actually had two parts: changing the start of the civil year from March 25 to January 1, and adopting the Gregorian calendar in preference to the older Julian calendar. The changes were adopted by Britain (and its colonies) in 1752, resulting in 1751 being a short year (because it didn't run its full term to the following March), and 1752 was a short year because 11 days were dropped in September in order to accommodate the new calendar. Hence, the baptism entry I saw was written in the "old style" with a year that ran March-to-March, meaning that Feb 1752 came AFTER Dec 1752.Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-42044630667035879722018-12-19T23:47:11.029-07:002018-12-19T23:47:11.029-07:00And to add to it, in what will be America, 1752 wa...And to add to it, in what will be America, 1752 was the date when the date changed. I do not know of the tip of my head when it went into effect (Day and Month), but that would explain it. Maybe.<br />SEfromNChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14863821402492505937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-67923384808250456692018-12-19T01:35:42.595-07:002018-12-19T01:35:42.595-07:00Is that necessarily automatically an error? No. It...Is that necessarily automatically an error? No. It most certainly can be however. <br /><br />December 1752 was 10 months after February 1752. However the problem is that December 1752 was also 2 months before February 1752. If the events took place in England then it would definitely be an error, but if the events took place in Scotland it would definitely not be an error.<br /><br />How about this for a convoluted one? How about if a person was born in January 1753 on a farm just north of the Scottish border but the nearest parish church was in England and the child was christened in a English village church in March 1752? Perfectly possible, perfectly correct and intensely confusing for the vast majority of people.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05555471831028752100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-38836985200691118912018-12-18T21:00:48.332-07:002018-12-18T21:00:48.332-07:00My husband's grandmother lived to be 97. She d...My husband's grandmother lived to be 97. She died a few weeks before her 98th birthday. As she got older, she got in the habit of embellishing her age. She would just go ahead a claim to be a year older than she was just because it was almost her birthday. She did this for the last few years of her life. I have one of the last quilts that she made. Embroidered on the back is her name and age - 98, except she was never 98. Trust nothing, not even quilts!!!kdduncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02324473106970005553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-21414001252875864632018-12-18T14:24:42.695-07:002018-12-18T14:24:42.695-07:00Of course, the problem would make more sense if I ...Of course, the problem would make more sense if I re-read it before posting it. The birth was in Dec 1752 but the baptism was in Feb 1752. Anyone want to have a shot?Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-74921489678468521302018-12-18T14:15:52.196-07:002018-12-18T14:15:52.196-07:00I know how that works, let's see if someone el...I know how that works, let's see if someone else wants to work it out. <br />James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-49884845613598355112018-12-18T07:40:12.603-07:002018-12-18T07:40:12.603-07:00Event dates may be inexact or suspect, but the rel...Event dates may be inexact or suspect, but the relationships between events (e.g. Baptism AFTER birth, etc) are generally easier to assert and more reliable. STEMMA is one of the few (only?) data models that embraces this part of historical data. Unfortunately, because GEDCOM didn't do it then no one else seems to. Here's a question for your other readers James: I recently came across a birth in Feb 1752 and the corresponding baptism in Dec 1752. How many people (incl. online providers) would consider that to be an error? Anyone worked out the reason for this? :-)Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.com