TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-03 > 0951913789


From: Elizabeth VandenBerg <>
Subject: Re: TMG-L: verifying a date 1665/66 or 1666/67
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 07:29:49 -0500


Norb:

Yeah, it had ME running around in circles too once I read
it. <gg> The message should have read:

This would be the Julian calendar (the switch to the
Gregorian occurred in the Colonies in 1752). Kenneth L.
Smith's book _Genealogical Dates: A User-Friendly Guide_
(Rockport, Maine: Picton Press, 1994) shows that for the
Julian calendar and for the year 1667, January 19 was on a
Saturday. On the Gregorian calendar, there was no January 19
on a Saturday for any of those three years. The proper way
of writing this date in Connecticut with double dating would
be 19 January 1666/1667, because the new year didn't start
until 25 March on the Julian calendar. So, using 1 January
as the new year as we do today, the Julian date would be 19
January 1666 (_because the new year didn't start until 25
March in the Julian calendar_), which was really 1667
Gregorian (perhaps 29 January 1667 Gregorian, allowing for
the addition of the phantom ten days). However, using double
dating, it was written 19 January 1666/1667, with the Julian
day of the 19th, which is the calendar Connecticut was
using, but adding the double date for those areas (like
Dutch New York) that had already switched.

So I think you're safe to use 19 January 1666/1667, don't
convert it, and perhaps make a note in the memo that this
was using the Julian calendar.

Hope this helps, but I'm just going on what that book says.
<g>

Elizabeth Wilson VandenBerg
<>

Norb Bankert wrote:
>
> Geeez, I thought had a handle on this date stuff but I'm finding out that
> I'm not quite as smart as I thought I was. You're all coming up with the
> answer I want but I can't figure out how you get it.
>
> According to the Calendar zone (thanks Bev) and Elizabeth Sat. 19 Jan falls
> on Saturday in 1667 in the Julian calendar. Everyone is telling me that
> this is 1666/67 and that's what I want to hear but if it's '67 julian,
> wouldn't that be '68 Gregorian? In other words 1667/68 (which doesn't work
> at all for my data).
>
> Elizabeth:
> While I'm still confused, I gotta tell you that your first message really
> had me running around in circles <g>.
>
> Lee:
> In trying to convert to Julian I do believe (I could be wrong) that 10 days
> were added to the date. By the time New England converted in 1752 enough
> time had gone by that they had lost another day. So, if I'm correct, it
> wasn't untill 1752 that the 11'th day was added.
> BTW, what is John Kent's Calisto program? I really like his answer.
>
> I'm not out of the woods yet on this but I really appreciate all the help,
> Norb
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TMG-L The Internet Mailing List for The Master Genealogist
> To unsubscribe: Send an e-mail to with 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L'
> or... if you get the digest version: 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L-DIGEST'
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMG-L The Internet Mailing List for The Master Genealogist
To unsubscribe: Send an e-mail to with 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L'
or... if you get the digest version: 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L-DIGEST'
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread: