Peter Haughton stated :-
I did say that I was aware of double dating and the phrases "Old
Style" and "New Style" ...
But I do not see why given that ALL calendars that were printed/
written from that period always start with January and proceed
to December. They do NOT start with March and go to
;Gene Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] "Old Style" MONTHS???
Peter Haughton wrote:
Sounds Good Dave, BUT when the Julian Calendar was
established, the start of the year was 1 January and all
those months that a
Peter Haughton wrote:
Sounds Good Dave, BUT when the Julian Calendar was
established, the start of the year was 1 January and all
those months that are (and were) based on the Latin
name for the number were two out, as they had been for
several centuries before that.
Taken from the Quaker websi
This British Tax year still runs from 5th April each year. This is from the
25th March the legal New Year to which have been added the "lost days" from
the changeover in calendars. There would have been problems in changing the
Governmental year, so it wasn't changed, it still occurs.
John Clare
Peter Haughton wrote:
Sounds Good Dave, BUT when the Julian Calendar was
established, the start of the year was 1 January and all
those months that are (and were) based on the Latin
name for the number were two out, as they had been for
several centuries before that.
The fact that the Latin pref
o: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] "Old Style" MONTHS???
>
>
> On 22 Jan 2008 Peter Haughton wrote:
>
> > Birth: (1) 24 Aug 1729, s/o Joseph Haughton/Mary Payne.
> > (2) 24 8th mo., 1729, Dublin. (NOTE: In old style
This is not true at all. None of it.
Peter.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of RICHARD
> SCHULTHIES
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:40 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyU
PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jackie
> King
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:40 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] "Old Style" MONTHS???
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Yes there is substance to it. Check out th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Cathy
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:14 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] "Old Style" MONTHS???
>
>
> Hi Peter,
> Are you awar
The Roman calendar went from March 1st month through
February 12th month. That is why September is 7,
October is 8, etc. so it is accurate. In the American
colonies at the time, they used the month number, as
above. The Romans didn't renumber the months, Pope
Gregory and the protestant rulers did,
On 22 Jan 2008 Peter Haughton wrote:
> Birth: (1) 24 Aug 1729, s/o Joseph Haughton/Mary Payne.
> (2) 24 8th mo., 1729, Dublin. (NOTE: In old style
> dating, 8th month is October.)
> I have never seen before such an assertion that under "Old Style"
> dating the months were renumb
Hi Peter,
Are you aware that as part of the changeover there is the change from
the New Year beginning on 25 March and the New Year beginning 1 January?
that accounts for October being the 8th month - as the name itself suggests.
Quakers didn't use the month names as they relate to Roman (and G
Peter,
Yes there is substance to it. Check out this link which is the one I
use to remind myself.
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/roots-l/genealog/genealog.quakerc1
Jackie
Peter Haughton wrote:
Dear Group
Having ventured far enough back in family delving I now
have dates prior to 1752 in Irel
13 matches
Mail list logo
