Quaker dating

[JimP]

I have a branch of my tree among the Quakers of Dover, New Hampshire and Falmouth, Maine in the 17th and 18th centuries. With a very few exceptions, the Quaker records always designate the month numerically, rather than by name. (the rare exception will generally read "the second month, known as April".

Recently, I came across a published article (published 2005) on a branch of one of these families. I noticed discrepancies with my own research, and notice that the author had, for dates after 1752, continued to interpret the "1st month" as March, whereas I had interpreted the first month as January.

When England and the colonies switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, with the corresponding switch of the civil New Year from March 25 to January 1, did the Quakers follow, or did they continue to observe March 25 as the change of year?

(unfortunately, all my sources are published transcripts of the records, and not the original records themselves)

 

[At home in NZ]

When England and the colonies switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, with the corresponding switch of the civil New Year from March 25 to January 1, did the Quakers follow, or did they continue to observe March 25 as the change of year?

You might find these helpful:
The Quaker Calendar and The Quaker Calendar Guide

 

[Pauline]

When England and the colonies switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, with the corresponding switch of the civil New Year from March 25 to January 1, did the Quakers follow, or did they continue to observe March 25 as the change of year?

In my experience of English Quakers, they changed the calendar in 1752 along with everyone else, and the helpful link posted by AHNZ confirms that Quakers were certainly expected to conform with the act from 1752.

So there doesn't really seem to be any doubt that from 1752 the 1st month was January, and it seems the author of the article you mention has omitted to notice the change.

In my experience also older transcripts often got it wrong before 1752, assuming the 1st month to be January instead of March, though in recent years some have been corrected.

 

[peter]

In my experience also older transcripts often got it wrong before 1752, assuming the 1st month to be January instead of March, though in recent years some have been corrected.

I always record entries in my tree as if the year began on 1st January, but include a note if there is ambiguity. Otherwise you can have a situation where an infant child appears to have died before they were born, which my family tree program thinks is an error.

 

[JimP]

In my experience of English Quakers, they changed the calendar in 1752 along with everyone else, and the helpful link posted by AHNZ confirms that Quakers were certainly expected to conform with the act from 1752.

So there doesn't really seem to be any doubt that from 1752 the 1st month was January, and it seems the author of the article you mention has omitted to notice the change.

In my experience also older transcripts often got it wrong before 1752, assuming the 1st month to be January instead of March, though in recent years some have been corrected.

Pauline, that has always been my experience to date, that many late 19th century and early 20th century genealogies of Great Migration families either interpreted the numeric dates according to the modern calendar, leading to dates that are either 2 months or 10 months off, depending how they treated the year, and those mistakes are repeated in most online trees. Every once in a while I run into someone who has translated the date to the Gregorian calendar by adding 9, 10, or 11 days. (it was common at one point: George Washington's birth was on 11 Feb 1731/32, but is commonly reported as 22 Feb 1732, and 22 Feb was the holiday, until it was transferred to the 3rd Monday). This is the first time I ever ran into a problem with post-1752 dates.

 

[JimP]

I always record entries in my tree as if the year began on 1st January, but include a note if there is ambiguity. Otherwise you can have a situation where an infant child appears to have died before they were born, which my family tree program thinks is an error.

Peter, not a bad practice, if you are consistent about it. I use Family Tree Maker, and it accommodates double dates (which seems to be the accepted practice among American genealogists), and prompts when entering a January to March date before 1752. If ever I have a doubt, or there is ambiguity in my sources, I note it, and if my source is an original record rather than a transcript or secondary source, I note that as conclusive. Of course, I run into problems with the branches that went north to New France. But for those I always the date as it was in New France, and ignore the error warning.