|
|
Thought "New Style" was an 11-day conversion. --Neal Gardner 14:15, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- It was 11 days in the 1700's, only 10 days in the 1600's. Since the conversion was meant to compensate for treating years divisible by 100 as leap years (no longer done - unless they are divisible by 400 as 2000 was), passing the year 1700 means there was one more false leap year that needed to be adjusted for. --Jrich 15:15, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- Per record? Per record would mean the Ipswich VR, derived from an official government record ([1]). This record does not say 13 Aug, and does say 3 Aug. The Hovey Genealogy is nothing more than a genealogy, the conclusions of a person or persons, and since it does not say where the date 13 Aug comes from, it does not carry as much authority as the vital record, which is a transcribed primary record. After all, it is only a conjecture that the discrepancy is due to conversion to new style, we don't actually know if that is true, since they didn't indicate it. It could be a typo, it could come from a church record, it could come from the recording of the marriage in a different town's records, it could be taken from some other genealogical book, etc. Until we know the source, we must assume it has a lesser credibility than the presumptively authoritative vital records. It is always possible that the published VRs contain an error, and that the Hovey book referred to the originals, and has the right date, but the way to resolve that would be to go to the original (or filmed) handwritten records, citing the film, etc., as an additional source, and explaining that it differs from the published version, perhaps even providing an image as a convenience to the other researchers. --Jrich 12:32, 12 February 2010 (EST)
My error, misreading one record for another. Such a fuss. I work on a library PC in 30 minute increments. Take it easy on a person.--Neal Gardner 13:10, 12 February 2010 (EST)
|
|
