Thibaud Taudin-Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The year 1800 wouldn't be a leap year under the Gregorian calendar because > 18 is not a mutliple of 4.
Yes, this agrees with what I said about 1800 being treated as a normal year in England as a result of her adoption the Gregorian reform. > Would England have adopted the Gregorian > calendar right from the start in 1582 then 1600 would have been the first > centennial leap year. Regardless of adoption of the Gregorian change 1600 would have been a leap year--under both the Julian and Gregorian rules 1600 is a leap year (as is 2000, which is what began this thread of discussion). The first century non-leap year for early adopters of the reform was 1700. However, 1700 was treated as a leap year in England and other late adopters. That is the reason England had one more day of adjustment when the reform was finally adopted. > Did you know that by the same act of Parliament in 1751 the start of the > year was changed from 25 March to 1 Januari, commencing in 1752 ? Yes. Jim 40N45, 111W53 ------------------- ---------------------- -------------------- | Jim Cobb | 540 Arapeen Dr. #100 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Parametric | Salt Lake City, UT | (801)-588-4632 | | Technology Corp. | 84108-1202 | Fax (801)-588-4650 | ------------------- ---------------------- -------------------- You can't have everything. Where would you put it? -- Steven Wright
