The standard way of
entering dates for genealogy records
|
Who would have thought that entering something as simple as a date could
be so complicated.? Unfortunately it is!
First there is a choice between dd/mm/yyyy (01/12/1850), or the American
format mm/dd/yyyy (12/01/1850). To make it ddmmyyyy ? (01121850) or dd-mm-yyyy
(01-12-1850)? Some people as a standard prefer yyyymmdd (18501201) because
(apparently) it can be sorted easily into chronological order. (Which
unfortunately doesn't work for us genealogists).
Unfortunately, all of the above can cause problems when dealing with recording
dates from old parish registers.
This is what the whole of this page is about. Defining a standard way of
recording dates which is unambiguous, and which will always work, no matter
what the date is. Unfortunately, we have to allow for several little "quirks"
of time.
The correct format to ender dates into a genealogical record is:
dd mon yyyy(/y(0))
e.g. 01 Dec 1850 or 21 Jan 1723/4 or 21 Jan 1729/30
There are just two "awkward" years: 1599/00 and 1699/00, but they do
follow the rule.
There is no ambiguity in this method. During the course of this
document, we shall investigate why.
|
Numbers
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 etc. right? To us, yes, but this hasn't always been
the case.
Old parish registers can show numbers in a few different ways. The old way
of forming them can also be different to what we know nowadays.
Latin format numbers
i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x (1 to 10)
xx, xxx (20 & 30)
xl (40)
l (50)
lx, lxx, lxxx (60, 70, 80)
xc (90)
c (100)
d (500)
m (1000) any of which can appear in upper or lower case. MCMLXVI mcmlxvi
Most of us are fairly used to Latin numbering. But even here a long number
such as a year takes some working out.
There is another little "quirk" with Latin numbers as written. It goes like
this:
vj (6)
vij (7)
viij (8)
xj (11)
xij (12)
Notice that the last i, or even a single i, is written as a "j"
That's even before we have the problem of deciphering the handwriting style!
But even then, some clerics wrote numbers in words. One, two, three.... but
in Latin of course. We need to be able to identify these. Fortunately, most
of them, even if we haven't ever learned them, seem familiar. (Because much
of English is based on latin anyway). There are also cases where a mixture
of Latin and English is used!
| Figure |
Latin
figure |
Written as a date |
English
translation |
Latin
number |
Odd things.
Some common |
| 1 |
i or j |
primo |
on the first |
Unus |
|
| 2 |
ii or ij |
secundo |
on second |
duo |
iid |
| 3 |
iii or iij |
tertio |
on third |
tres |
|
| 4 |
iv or iiij |
quarto |
on fourth |
quattuor |
|
| 5 |
v |
quinto |
on fifth |
quinque |
vth |
| 6 |
vi or vj |
sexto |
on sixth |
sex |
|
| 7 |
vii or vij |
septimo |
on seventh |
septem |
|
| 8 |
viii or viij |
octavo |
on eighth |
octo |
|
| 9 |
ix or viiii or viiij |
nono |
on ninth |
novem |
|
| 10 |
x |
decimo |
on tenth |
decem |
|
| 11 |
xi or xj |
undecimo |
on eleventh |
undecim |
|
| 12 |
xii or xij |
duodecimo |
on twelfth |
duodecim |
|
| 13 |
xiii or xiij |
decimo tertio |
on thirtheenth |
tredecim |
|
| 14 |
xiv |
decimo quarto |
on fourteenth |
quattuordecim |
|
| 15 |
xv |
decimo quinto |
on fifteenth |
quindecim |
|
| 16 |
xvi or xvj |
decimo sexto |
on sixteenth |
sedecim |
|
| 17 |
xvii or xvij |
decimo septimo |
on seventeenth |
septendecim |
|
| 18 |
xviii or xviij |
decimo octo, or
duodevicesimo |
on eighteenth
two from twentieth |
octodecim, or
duodeviginti |
|
| 19 |
xix |
decimo nono, or
undevicesimo |
on the nineteenth
one from twentieth |
undeviginti |
|
| 20 |
xx |
vicesimo |
on the twentieth |
viginti |
xxtie = 20tie |
| 21 |
xxi or xxj |
vicesimo primo |
on twenty first |
|
|
| 30 |
xxx |
tricesimo |
on the thirtieth |
triginta |
xxxtie |
| 40 |
xl |
|
|
quadraginta |
|
| 50 |
l or L |
|
|
|
|
| 60 |
lx |
|
|
|
|
| 70 |
lxx |
|
|
|
|
| 80 |
lxxx |
|
|
|
|
| 90 |
xc |
|
|
|
|
| 100 |
c or C |
|
|
centum |
|
| 200 |
cc |
|
|
|
|
| 500 |
d or D |
|
|
|
|
| 1000 |
m or M |
|
|
|
|
MD = 1000+500 = 1500
MDC = 1000+600 = 1600
MDCC = 1000+700 = 1700
MDCXX = 1000+600+20 = 1620
MDCLXVIII = 1000+600+50+10+8 =1668
Fortunately for us, most Latin years written in parish registers are from
1538 to about 1640, although most ceased to be using Latin before 1600.
|
Months
|
We are used to January through December, but it wasn't always quite that
way.
Let's start with the Latin December, because that's easy to figure out. Yes.
The 10th month. That is because until 1752, the year number changed
over on March 26. The first time that 1st January was used as the
first day of the year was 1752.
| Month |
Abbrevation
used in
transcript |
Old month
number |
Sometimes
written |
New month
number |
| March |
Mar |
1 |
|
3 |
| April |
Apr |
2 |
|
4 |
| May |
May |
3 |
|
5 |
| June |
Jun |
4 |
|
6 |
| July |
Jul |
5 |
|
7 |
| August |
Aug |
6 |
|
8 |
| September |
Sep |
7 |
7ber |
9 |
| October |
Oct |
8 |
8ber |
10 |
| November |
Nov |
9 |
9ber |
11 |
| December |
Dec |
10 |
10ber |
12 |
| January |
Jan |
11 |
|
1 |
| February |
Feb |
12 |
|
2 |
We have to be aware of this in reading numerical months in old registers,
right up to December 1751. Watch out fo those 8ber type entries
too. Not the 8th month = August!
Just to make life a little awkward for us, there was advanced warning of
this change, and some clergymen jumped the gun and began using January 1st
as the year changeover some years earlier, whilst some stubborn ones carried
on using the year changeover as March 26th! Fortunately you can identify
these very easily in a register, as you can see where they have written the
year number changes.
When recording data from registers into a database (as opposed to making
a literal transcription) use the three letter abbreviation for the month,
e.g. Jan Sep etc. (without full stops/periods).
|
The 1752 calendar
change
|
Before 1752, the year number changed over on March 25th (Lady day). The year 1752 was the
first year that January 1st was the first day of the year.
This gives us a potential little problem when recording dates before March
25th in each year.
If March 25th was the first day of the year, and let's say a couple were
married on that day, in 1750. They could quite easily have a baptism of their
first child on March 24th 1750 - a year later !
That's our problem. Some genealogists record precisely what is recorded in
a parish register. Some record it as written, but didn't realise that in
our modern calendar they could actually be referring to a different year.
Some genealogists make an allowance and record 5 January 1750 as 5 January
1751 because 1751 is the "real" year in our modern calendar.
The big problem with either, is that we don't know if a genealogist or
transcriber has written it literally or made allowance for the modern calendar!
So, the correct standard for writing these dates in our records (and when
we transcribe registers) is in the form 1750/1. It is them extremely obvious
that 1750 is what was written in the register, but it was really 1751 in
the new calendar. 1749/50, 1630/1, 1699/00 etc. Easy! No confusion.
So, for all years up to and including 1751, dates between 1 January and 24
March inclusive, are written with double dates. 23 Jan 1731/2.
|
Regnal years
|
Regnal years are really hard to get to grips with. Unfortunately, some
clergymen used them in earlier registers.
The system works like this. Instead of a normal calendar year, the year written
down was the number of years since the year in which the Coronation took
place. Worse still, year number 1 started on the day of the Coronation. When
Edward I became King - 1239 (and from then onwards), the Regnal year started
on the day the reign began (i.e. before the Coronation). Often, but not always,
the day the previous monarch died.
Years alone are relatively easy to calculate. The ones we are really interested
in are those from 1538, when parish registers began, although of course Regnal
years were commonly used before this date.
| 1509 - 1547 |
Henry VIII |
1 Hen VIII |
| 1538 |
|
30 Hen VIII |
| 1547 |
|
39 Hen VIII |
| 1547 |
Edward VI |
1 Edw VI |
| 1553 |
|
7 Edw VI |
| 1553 |
Mary I |
1 Mar |
| 1558 |
|
6 Mar |
| 1558 |
Elizabeth I |
1 Eliz |
| 1600 |
|
42 Eliz |
| 1603 |
|
45 Eliz |
| 1603 |
James I |
1 Jac |
| 1625 |
|
22 Jac |
| 1625 |
Charles I |
1 Chas |
| 1649 |
|
24 Chas |
| 1660 |
Charles II |
1Chas II |
| 1685 |
|
25 Chas II |
| 1685 |
James II |
1 Jac II |
| 1688 |
|
4 Jac II |
| 1688 |
William III & Mary II |
1Gul III |
| 1700 |
|
12 Gul II |
| 1702 |
|
14 Gul III |
| 1702 |
Anne |
1 Ann |
| 1714 |
|
13 Ann |
| 1714 |
George I |
1 Geo |
| 1727 |
|
13 Geo I |
| 1727 |
George II |
1 Geo II |
| 1760 |
|
33 Geo II |
It is uncommon for Regnal years to be used much later than this. But there
was still the occasional die-hard clergyman who did, and some scholars and
historians still use Regnal years. |
