Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts

Monday, 18 April 2016

Finding ancestors in the 'wrong' year in records

If you're fortunate (or dedicated) enough to trace any ancestors back to before the 1750s, and they were from Britain or its colonies, you may come across some odd-looking dates in documents from the early months of each year. They might be in letters, books, newspapers or parish records.

Here's an example, from the parish records for Merioneth/Meirionnedd in north-west Wales:


It looks as if nobody was baptised, married or buried between March 21, 1748, and March 25, 1749 - which isn't very likely. But not understanding this record could cause problems.

Suppose you're looking for Hugh Ellis and all the evidence points to him being born in Cae Gwernog in 1749 - and you found this record. You might think your other information was wrong, because it looks as if he was baptised on 21 April, 1748.

You might find a parish record which is even more puzzling (but gives a clue to the solution), like this one for the baptism of Mary Roberts of Tarporley, from the Diocese of Chester parish records:


She was baptised on 1 January, 1744. But wait a minute - just above her in the baptism of Thomas Garnett, on 30 December... 1744. Couldn't these people keep their records in order?

And yes, of course, they could. It's just that the calendar was organised in a slightly different way until 1752 in Britain and its colonies.

Old Style

From the late 12th century until 1751, the legal year began on Lady Day, the Feast of the Annunciation, celebrated on 25 March (exactly nine months before Christmas Day). So the year changed on that day: 24 March, 1750, would be followed by 25 March, 1751, and the year's length was calculated according to the Julian calendar. It seems odd to us, but since it was the way things had been for centuries, it was easy to understand.

Except...

New Style

Except that in October 1582, Pope Gregory XIII introduced a new calendar. By then, because the length of a year under the Julian calendar had been slightly over-calculated as being 365 days and six hours, with the six hours being added together every fourth year to make a leap year, the date of Easter had drifted too far away from the Spring equinox.

This also resulted in 'removing' 10 days from the calendar to make up for the drift. The new calendar, known as the Gregorian, was adopted by Catholic countries. But the English-speaking world was officially Protestant, and Protestant states weren't having anything to do with a change decided by the Pope. They stayed with the Julian calendar.

This caused confusion in dating letters, reports and documents which crossed the time zone between Protestant and Catholic countries.

To avoid this confusion, people often dated their papers using OS (Old Style) and NS (New Style), or gave two alternative years for those awkward days from 1 January to 24 March, like 1700-01, or 1700/1.

Here's how one newspaper, the Newcastle Courant, coped with the date problem:




You'll notice that in the latest edition the paper is dated 1744, but the first article mentions a date as being in OS - it's a report from (Gregorian, NS) France.

Just to add a little more confusion, the legal year in Scotland was changed to begin on 1 January in 1600, and after the Union of Parliaments in 1707, this caused more legislative problems.

Parliament wasn't happy. In 1750, it stated that the use of the Julian calendar was 'attended with divers inconveniences, not only as it differs from the usage of neighbouring nations, but also from the legal method of computation in Scotland, and from the common usage throughout the whole kingdom, and thereby frequent mistakes are occasioned in the dates of deeds and other writings, and disputes arise therefrom.'

And so the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 was passed. It ruled that the English-speaking world would make two changes in 1752: that year would start on 1 January everywhere; and there would be 11 days removed from the calendar, since the drift had widened another year since 1582, when the Gregorian calendar came into force.


Still with me? Phew! I think we both deserve a picture to help explain the effect this had on record-keeping.


These are burials from the parish records of St Stephen's Church in Norwich. You'll see that 1750 burials go from 31 March to 14 March; 1751 burials are from 25 March to 24 December; and 1752 burial start on 2 January.

The other part of the changes brought about by the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 was the removal of 11 days. Here's the law:



So you went to bed in the evening of September 2 and woke up on the morning of September 14. Which was not much fun if your birthday or other special day fell into the 'lost' time.


The Whitehall and General Evening Posts tried to explain the whole muddle on the morning of 14 September, NS:



Until recently I believed the story that the loss of 11 days caused widespread riots, with people furiously demanding: 'Give us back our eleven days!'

Unfortunately, it seems that this is an urban, and rural, myth, though the phrase was well enough known at the time. It appears, as 'give us our Eleven Days', on a placard at the bottom of William Hogarth's satirical painting An Election Entertainment:




But the missing 11 days isn't just a story about how daft the uneducated people were. A very recent blog post has pointed out that, though poorer people's wages, which were often paid by the day, fell by a third in September 1752, their rents did not. A good reason to be angry.

The taxes still had to be brought in, and so (rather than lose 11 days' tax) the government ruled that the new fiscal year should start 11 days later than Lady Day. And an extra day was added in 1800. That's why the UK tax year begins on 6 April - it's the old Lady Day, plus the (now) 12 days' drift.

Finally, as everyone's going Shakespeare mad, with the 400th anniversary of his death on 23 April, here's a brain teaser:
Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes died on the same date - but not on the same day. How can that be?

Notes:

Believe it or not, I've simplified things a lot here. The original Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 can be read online, if you really want to
All images are from FindMyPast, except for the Hogarth painting, An Election Entertainment, which is CC via Wikimedia, and the extract from the Calendar Act
If working out OS/NS dates is too much of a time-waster, there's a handy online date converter to do the work for you

Thursday, 31 July 2014

CuriousFox: a gazetteer and message system

Logo on www.curiousfox.com
CuriousFox is a gazetteer and message system that connects genealogists and local historians. Collaboration between these two groups is immensely beneficial.

In CuriousFox, every town and village in the United Kingdom and Ireland has its own page. There is also a USA version, which I have not personally used.

Things I like about CuriousFox include:
  • Exact map locations and historic maps.
  • Free to join, add entries, and search by village or surname.
  • With surname searches, finding relevant entries is easier because you can work at town / village level.
  • You can search for 'nearby' entries.
  • It is easy to edit or delete your entries.
  • Google searches will find your entries (so 'new relatives' can contact you).
  • No spam (your email address is not visible).
  • Privacy (the system sends messages between members, and you decide whether to give a particular member your address).
  • Advantages of being a paying member (about five pounds per year) include:
    • Contact and be contacted by all other members (free or paying).
    • Receive email alerts when people add entries for towns of interest to you.
    • Publicise your Web page or blog.

Entry screen for my ASHTON message
HINTS:
  • Give some thought to the wording of your entries. They should be concise, with surnames (and only surnames) in capital letters. Specify dates, and use appropriate punctuation.

  • For large towns with many entries and multiple pages, delete your entry every year and immediately resubmit it (updated if necessary) so that it reappears near the top of the list for that town. I did this recently, and within 24 hours a local historian contacted me and offered to send transcriptions of land records for that surname/town!

I hope you will try Curious Fox and share your success stories in a comment here. You might also like:

Thursday, 8 May 2014

Everyday Llife of our Victorian Ancestors

I've been trying to catch up after the mammoth daily April A-Z Challenge - so just a short piece from me this month on a book that is well worth reading as background material for writing your family history narratives.

Do you want to find out what life was really like for your ancestors living  in Victorian Britain?    

17321139 I recommend "How to be a Victorian" by Ruth Goodman, published by the Penguin Group in 2013.

It is  a fascinating read that gives us an insight  into how Victorians lived their daily lives, whether they be rich of poor, town or country based.  

Material has been gathered from contemporary accounts,  letters, diaries, newspapers and magazines.   

The author takes an innovative approach by following a typical routine  day in all its detail  for both men and women;  from the point of waking up - by a servant in a grand house or a"knocker upper" poking a stick at the window of a miner or mill worker's home.

Of added interest are the descriptions by the  author of her attempts to experience some aspects  of Victorian life  - such as doing the laundry, trying out Victorian recipes, heating the home or  struggling into the multi layers of dress.

We often can gather information quite easily on the life of the upper classes. but the emphasis here is very much on the day to day lives  of ordinary people.  

Chapters look at 
  • Waking Up
  • Getting Dressed 
  • A Trip to the Privy
  • Personal Grooming
  • Breakfast and Midday Meal
  • A typical  working day -  for both men & women 
  • School
  • Leisure Time
  • The Evening Meal 
  • Before Bed
  • Behind the Bedroom Door 
Just one slight niggle - there is hardly anything on the the part church played in people's lives,    which I found surprising, given our perception of the Victorian preoccupation with religions observances.

This is no dry historical textbook, but an engrossing read, (or a book to dip into), to experience what life was really like for our ancestors.   

RECOMMENDED! 

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

Sources - source of pride and envy

Two weeks ago, I flew to London to attend Who Do You Think You Are? Live! Although most genealogists I met were from the British Isles, I also got to meet genealogists from Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, United States, Australia, South Africa and India. Worldwide Genealogists In Real Live.

One of the most fun aspects of this year's visit was being an expert on 'Ask the Expert,' where visitors can book free 20-minute consults. You can read about my experiences as an expert on my blog. I also met fellow members of the Association for Professional Genealogists and talked to many people at the stands.

Yvette with a Dutchgenealogy.nl bag standing at the balcony at Who Do You Think You Are
Me with my Dutchgenealogy.nl bag
(easier to spot than a rose in my lapel when meeting new people)
There was one thing I noticed while talking to this range of genealogists: how much we identify ourselves with our sources. Two genealogists from the UK independently told me, a bit smug, how their birth, marriage and death records go all the way back to 1837. Only to be surprised when I told them that in the Netherlands these records start in 1811, when the civil registration was introduced by Napoleon. Comparing our sources almost felt like a 'mine is bigger than yours' competition.

I must admit I take pride in the excellent records we keep in the Netherlands. I often work with genealogists from the US, where records typically start later or are less informative than their Dutch counterparts. Take US census records, for example. These only record families every 10 years (or 5 years if you are lucky and the state held a census in between the federal censuses). In the Netherlands, since 1850 we have had population registers that describe whole households, but they were kept up-to-date. Families were required to report their departure and arrival so the municipality could make sure the registers accurately reflected its residents. These records are so useful for genealogy and I love educating Dutch Americans about the possibilities for research in the Netherlands.

Example of a population register (Breda, 1917-1938)
It wasn't until I talked to these UK genealogists that I realized that pride in our sources can come across as snobbery. I'm used to being at the 'high end' of these comparisons, where my sources 'trump' those of my discussion partner. These UK genealogists were obviously used to that as well. The way we talked about our sources was almost like we felt superior to the other, which is strange since none of us have any influence on the hand we are dealt.

Genealogy Standards1
In fact, I think there is an upside to having fewer sources available. Over the last two years, I have been emerging myself in genealogical methods and standards as they are taught in the US, to prepare myself to become a Certified Genealogist. The Americans are light years ahead in terms of methodology, compared to genealogical education in the Netherlands. When you have fewer and less informative sources to work with, you must learn how to make the most of them.

In the Netherlands, the solution to almost any brick wall is always "find more sources." Building a case using indirect evidence even seen as sloppy genealogy by some, because you did not put in the effort to make another trip to the archives to find real evidence. In the US, genealogists need to learn how to combine indirect evidence from a range of sources to prove their case.

Reading about their techniques has been an epiphany for me and has helped me to solve several of my own brick walls. Techniques that work for finding enslaved ancestors have helped me trace serf ancestors. Lesson learned: no matter how wonderful our sources are, we can all learn from each other.

Notes
  1. Board for Certification of Genealogists. Genealogy Standards, 50th-anniversary edition. Nashville, Tenn.: Ancestry, 2014. 100 pp., paper, ISBN 978-1-63026-018-7.