Family talk:Thomas Noble and Hannah Warriner (1)

Month numbering [24 June 2011]

I guess we need to come to an agreement as to what "the 6th month" meant in 1600s record notation. I was always taught that the first month of the year was March coinciding with 25 March being the first day of the year. Another contributor claims that the first month of the year was April. Anyone have an absolute answer ? In any case, neither June nor November is the correct month for their marriage; it must be either August or September.--Neal Gardner 14:07, 5 December 2009 (EST)

It is not a matter of agreement, but of fact. Starting with 1753 the year started January 1st. Before that it started March 25. So before 1753, March was the first month of the year. Thus many of the month names, such as September (7th month), October (8th month), November (9th month), and December (10th month) made sense in the old style, but seem out of step in the new style.

However, I am not sure where "6th month" comes from. The vital records of Springfield says "9th month" which is indeed November as given by the Noble Genealogy. --Jrich 11:15, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Noticed the note about the microfilm a little late, obviously. Sorry for the oversight. Now it becomes a matter of source provenance. One would assume the published vital records would use the original copy, but that does not always happen. I assume this is referring to microfilm 185414. The FHL film notes mention Births, marriages, and deaths, v. 1 (original) and Births, marriages, and deaths, v.1 (transcript), 1638-1728. Again I assume the original, handwritten version is referred to. Boltwood published in 1878, so obviously did not have access to the published records compiled by Clifford L. Stott and published by NEHGS in 2002, so looked at town records. Probably somebody needs to talk to the town clerk and find what the original copy says to decide if it should be 6 or 9 (Aug or Nov). It is no unusual for town clerks to have created a duplicate copy, possibly because the first copy was wearing out, so even if a handwritten copy is used, it could still be a copy. Also, town clerks may have submitted copies to the county courts so it could be useful to see if that copy is still available for confirmation. --Jrich 11:34, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

It wasn't obvious on the online copy, but everything published starting page 1661 is the Hampshire County copy of the records. So of the two records cited in source 2, the first is the town copy, said to be from Book 1, and the second is the county copy. --Jrich 12:04, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Ahh! Collaboration at its best! Clifford L. Stott, FASG, CG, AG, published in The American Genealogist, is put in his place. It's so obvious, it would be clutter to even bother identifying which microfilm "month 6" was seen on. After all, there's no possibility that the FHL filmed a copy of the vital records because it was more readable than the original, or because the town clerk withheld the original to protect it in its frailty. Clifford Stott was just climbing on the Lucius Boltwood bandwagon. I was so "pompous" to think any different. --Jrich 22:58, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

The image of the page happens to be in one of the collections at familysearch.org here. Thomas and Hannah's record is on the right page, pretty near the middle of the page. The stem of the nine is below the line. This is exactly how the nine is written in the previous record where the year is recorded as 1659. There is no stem above the circle. If it weren't for the stem below the line it would look just enough like a six to make it obvious this is what they were looking at, but clearly is a nine for the reasons mentioned. --Jrich 17:46, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Hallelujah ! Finally an eye on the original record. Would you like to flip the dates of marriage (or eliminate 1 Aug 1660 altogether) and contend with the sourcing ? I can deal with editing the text on the person pages. Great job. --Neal Gardner 13:37, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

If Ted and Freda saw a microfilm copy, they undoubtedly saw this, as the state of Mass. website indicates that originals are keep in the towns, and films are available through the FHL which is what this is, but I am fairly sure the book that was filmed was a copy of the original records (and given the age of the original, possibly a copy of a copy), probably made about early to mid 1800's if I had to guess. The capitalization is too consistent, not enough flourishes on the capital letters, words like Bliss would have had the s shaped liked a modern f, possibly I/J U/V interchange, and many other features of 1600's handwriting are just not there. The records are too uniformly spaced, which is easy to do if you already know everything that is to be written and it is all done in one go, but rarely happens when things are recorded the first time through an entry here, an entry there, and the two tick marks by each line were probably to keep track of how many times it had been checked. --Jrich 20:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)