RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: Les de B on Wednesday 20 February 19 12:53 GMT (UK)
-
I wonder if somebody could enlighten me in relation to the London marriage of David Bandinel and Elizabeth Stallenge at St.Olave, London?
The original church records has their marriage as the last marriage of the year 1599, that being 30 March 1599, then the year 1600 then commences from April immediatley after. I do understand that is the way calendar worked back then, but the company that transcribed the marriage have the date of 31 January, 1599, and I have also seen the date recorded as 31 January, 1598 elsewhere.
I know the year could be mixed up because of the old style calendar, but this shouldn't affect the month...........should it?
I know RootsChat are bit hard on Copyright breaches, but am I allowed to attach a copy of the original 2 line entry of this marriage just to confirm my reason for thinking the correct date of marriage is 30 March, 1599, and not 31 January?
Les
-
They married on 31 January 1599 (= 1600 in the modern calendar).
Looking at the original register (St Olave Hart Street, City of London), the date of each marriage is written above each entry ... check the foot of the page for the layout ...
the 31th daie [Januarie]
David Bandenell & Elsabeth Stallinge
The date written below that – 1600 Marche the 30th 1600 – belongs to the next marriage listed.
-
The original church records has their marriage as the last marriage of the year 1599, that being 30 March 1599, then the year 1600 then commences from April immediatley after. I do understand that is the way calendar worked back then
Just to clarify for future reference, in England the new year used to start on March 25 (Lady Day). Therefore 31 January was still in 1599. By 30 March, the new year had started so it was 1600.
Since the calendar changed (September 1752), the new year has started on 1 January.
Carol
-
Thanks BookBox - Yes, I can see now, it my mistake. It wasn't so much the calendar that had me scratching my head, but the actual entry itself. As you indicated, the date comes first, then the names - I was reading it as the names came first then the date. Better give myself an "upper cut" ;D
Thanks Carol - It was not so much the old calendar that was giving me the problem, but as BookBox pointed out, I was reading the information on the record incorrectly.
Both replies appreciated!