Quaker marriages and dates

[Pauline]

Regarding the date of the Quaker marriage illustrated in the latest newsletter, one way of confirming the year would be to check precedents in that meeting, which may be best done with births or deaths/burials where it may be easier to follow through consecutive events. If the year (before 1752) changes for births and burials on 25 March, then it’s a fair assumption that the same will apply to the marriages.

 

[peter]

Regarding the date of the Quaker marriage illustrated in the latest newsletter, one way of confirming the year would be to check precedents in that meeting, which may be best done with births or deaths/burials where it may be easier to follow through consecutive events. If the year (before 1752) changes for births and burials on 25 March, then it’s a fair assumption that the same will apply to the marriages.

There are rather more births and burials, but not that many and they are recorded in several different hands. Although I've only looked at a few years on either side, so far there haven't been any entries between 1st and 24th March. My guess is that whoever recorded the marriage considered the new year to begin on 1st March.

 

[Pauline]

I was just looking through some printouts I did years ago from some Wiltshire Quaker registers. Mostly it seemed no one was born, died or buried in March (one way of avoiding confusion, I guess!), but I did eventually find a death in the Chippenham monthly meeting register which was on the 2nd of the 1st month (2 March), and the year had been given as 1721/2.

So no doubts there, but I’m not sure it helps with your date.

 

[peter]

I was just looking through some printouts I did years ago from some Wiltshire Quaker registers. Mostly it seemed no one was born, died or buried in March (one way of avoiding confusion, I guess!), but I did eventually find a death in the Chippenham monthly meeting register which was on the 2nd of the 1st month (2 March), and the year had been given as 1721/2.

So no doubts there, but I’m not sure it helps with your date.

The entry you found is in line with the guide that I linked to on the Quaker site, which states:

"The first 24 days of March present even greater complications. Often these are double-dated: 15 1 mo. [March] 1708/9. "

It goes on to say that:

"Where they are single-dated the writer is usually, but not always, anticipating the year to begin on 25 March, so 7 1 mo. 1737 is probably 7 1 mo. [March] 1736/7 but may be 7 1 mo. [March] 1737/8."

That's why my best guess is that whoever recorded the marriage considered the new year to begin on 1st March. Fortunately in this case it doesn't much matter since the couple who married are not my direct ancestors.

 

[Pauline]

"Where they are single-dated the writer is usually, but not always, anticipating the year to begin on 25 March, so 7 1 mo. 1737 is probably 7 1 mo. [March] 1736/7 but may be 7 1 mo. [March] 1737/8."

I read that earlier and thought that particular sentence was ambiguous, because of using the word ‘anticipate’, which can mean either ‘expect’ or ‘jump the gun’. At the start of the sentence it seems the writer is ‘expecting’ the year to begin on 25 March, but if 7 March 1737 is ‘probably 7 March 1736/7’ then he’s ‘jumped the gun’.

In a parish register the date given as 7 March 1737 would be 1737/8 - ie at the end of what was then 1737 but would be 1738 if in the present calendar.

 

[peter]

I read that earlier and thought that particular sentence was ambiguous, because of using the word ‘anticipate’, which can mean either ‘expect’ or ‘jump the gun’. At the start of the sentence it seems the writer is ‘expecting’ the year to begin on 25 March, but if 7 March 1737 is ‘probably 7 March 1736/7’ then he’s ‘jumped the gun’.

Everyone would have known that the year began on 25th March: in this context, if you substitute 'expecting' for 'anticipating' the sentence surely makes no sense?

The problem Quakers had is that, using their terminology, March was both the 1st and the 13th month of the year. The fiction that the new year began on 1st March was a convenient solution - see the section headed Inconsistencies.

 

[Pauline]

Everyone would have known that the year began on 25th March

In the 18th century, yes, but this was written for the modern researcher who may not previously have known about the calendar change, and the sentence could have been made less ambiguous.

Actually, it always surprises me how many comparatively experienced researchers seem oblivious to the existence of the old calendar, or don’t understand why it matters. Twice recently I have come across a tree where the date of an event was given as January or February 1751.

And another tree with a seventeenth century ancestor where the year of a June burial had been changed, citing a ‘clear error’ in both PR and BT, because his widow had married again in February of the same year. In such cases I generally add a note explaining about the old calendar.

 

[Pauline]

Going back to Quaker dating, one of the difficulties in working out the year can be that the events were not listed in chronological order. However, I did look elsewhere in the Coggeshall monthly meeting register and they do seem to be 'double-dating' for January to March dates, with the year changing on 25 March. This seemed to be the case before and after 1718, but whether this can be seen as indicative of the normal practice in that meeting, I'm not sure.

 

[Pauline]

If anyone would like to look at the the original note in the Ifield monthly meeting register as mentioned in the research guide to the Quaker calendar, it can be seen in the Quaker dataset images at FMP, Ancestry and the Genealogist. The reference is RG6 1258 and the note is on image 222 at the latter two sites.

Interestingly, those who wrote entries in this particular register were at best inconsistent in adhering to this. As in other Quaker registers, many entries are not listed chronologically, which makes it difficult to determine what year was meant for March dates, but as early as 1675 some were given a double year. For example, a burial in Charlwood was given as '24th day of the 1st month 1675/6' (24 March 1675/6). In this example (which is not an isolated example), had the year been seen as starting on 1 March the double year would not have been necessary.

I think the answer here is to be cautious, and where events have not been entered in strict chronological order, a double year is not shown, and the date of the same event is not clarified in the Quarterly Meeting register, keep an open mind. With some registers, such as the Coggeshall MM register mentioned above, it may be possible to discover a 'normal practice' around the time concerned, but this won't always be possible.

Another avenue worth checking is the relevant parish register as some clergy recorded non-conformist births and burials which occurred in the parish.

 

[peter]

In this example (which is not an isolated example), had the year been seen as starting on 1 March the double year would not have been necessary.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that some Quakers considered that the year began on 1st March. What I was hypothesising - and it seems to be supported by the guide on the Quaker site - is that where double-dating was not used for dates between March 1st-24th the person who wrote the register entry was anticipating the change of year.

I have just found a 1949 paper entitled The Quaker Calendar at JSTOR which also supports this hypothesis, giving several examples from the American Colonies on page 2 (free registration allows the article to be read online). The following is one of the examples quoted:

In The History of the Society of Friends in
America by J. Bowden, vol. 1, page 215, is found
a letter of Thos. Wilkie, dated Mar. 26, 1661, in
which he states: "On the 14th of this instant one
William Leddra was put to death here [Boston]."
On page 217 we find a letter written by this
same William Leddra, dated "the 13th of the
First Month, 1661."

 

[Pauline]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that some Quakers considered that the year began on 1st March. What I was hypothesising - and it seems to be supported by the guide on the Quaker site - is that where double-dating was not used for dates between March 1st-24th the person who wrote the register entry was anticipating the change of year.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't think we can be that definite about it. Although as I've noted, Quaker registers did not always list events in chronological order, there were some that did, and despite not using double dating, it is clear from the order that some of these were changing the year on 25 March, not 1 March.

You are absolutely right that we need to be aware that Quakers sometimes (often?) worked on the basis that their new year began 1 March, and I agree with you on this. (I have been researching my Quaker ancestry for well over 30 years, so have acquired a bit of knowledge and experience along the way.) I am, however, suggesting caution in making assumptions, and where possible check for other sources.

 

[Pauline]

Peter, I’ve just re-read the extract in your newsletter about the Quaker marriage, and realised the answer to the date question in this particular case is right there - “according to the English account”.

 

[peter]

Peter, I’ve just re-read the extract in your newsletter about the Quaker marriage, and realised the answer to the date question in this particular case is right there - “according to the English account”.

You could be right, though I read that wording as applying to the month, since it was only in England (and her colonies) that March was the first month of the year. On balance I think your interpretation is more satisfactory, but I shall continue to keep an open mind - fortunately in this case it doesn't much matter which year it was since the bride and groom are not direct ancestors of mine.