Ancestry tree rubbish

[coombs]

Some people can be a bit confused by dates before 1751 or 1752 when the New Year changed from 25th March (or 26th March) to 1st January.

26th March 1722 to 25th March 1722 was the start and end dates of 1722. So January 1722 was the 10th month of the year. So October 1722 was the 7th month of the year.

October 1722 was before January 1722. So a baby buried in Oct 1722 and a baby baptised in Jan 1722 cannot be the same person as Jan 1722 was after Oct 1722.

[andrewalston]

Some people can be a bit confused by dates before 1751 or 1752 when the New Year changed from 25th March (or 26th March) to 1st January.

26th March 1722 to 25th March 1722 was the start and end dates of 1722. So January 1722 was the 10th month of the year. So October 1722 was the 7th month of the year.

Actually, because the year begins DURING March, that is the first month. That means that September to December are the seventh to tenth months, justifying their names.

It doesn't sound like a big difference, but Quaker records use the ordinal numbers for the months rather than the names. Eight of those names are derived from pagan roots and did not sit comfortably in their environment. You occasionally find the likes of "the fifth month, commonly called August".

After the change to the Gregorian Calendar, Quakers normally referred to January as the first month.

The adoption of the new calendar happened at different times in different countries, so dates can be confusing. FamilySearch seem to have converted most dates to "new style", but there are no guarantees. You need to see the documents to be sure.

Any decent family history software should allow the input of dates such as 25 Jan 1751/2, which shows not only when an event took place, but that you understand the date confusion problem.

I have even come across parish registers which used this format, showing that the confusion is not a new thing.

[Edward Scott]

One of the attached snips show the warning message given when entering a 'double year' date direct into Ancestry.

The other one shows the display given when entered via FTM and then synchronised.

Looks line Ancestry cannot handle it 

Edward

[Andrew Tarr]

I have even come across parish registers which used this format, showing that the confusion is not a new thing.

I have transcribed a few.  Sometimes one comes across something like 21 November 1733/34, which makes little sense as November will always be in the same 'logical' year.  So what does it mean?

[melba_schmelba]

I have even come across parish registers which used this format, showing that the confusion is not a new thing.

I have transcribed a few.  Sometimes one comes across something like 21 November 1733/34, which makes little sense as November will always be in the same 'logical' year.  So what does it mean?

Presumably, part of that year was known as 1733, but perhaps not .

[pinefamily]

I have even come across parish registers which used this format, showing that the confusion is not a new thing.

I have transcribed a few.  Sometimes one comes across something like 21 November 1733/34, which makes little sense as November will always be in the same 'logical' year.  So what does it mean?

Too much holy winecwhile filling out the register? 

[Edward Scott]

Words almost fail me

Edward

[melba_schmelba]

Words almost fail me

Edward

2 sources!

[pharmaT]

I have seen the 1930 US census being cited as proof of a birth in 1500s England.