COLONIAL DOUBLE DATING 1712-1713

SUZANNENEEL-JOHNSON · May 26

I discovered an "error" made by the Richmond Virginia court clerk in 1713 - I spent several hours yesterday cross-checking and looking at court records to be sure, because I had a hard time believing the error could have been repeated for the first three months of 1713.
The clerk consistently wrote "1712" up through the end of March 1713 on everything he recorded. I spent ours cross checking records to verify this. Just as I was formulating a statement and description of my discovery I googled it and learned about double-dating - Google AI says:

The date is not an error! It reflects "double dating" or "Old Style/New Style" dating used in Colonial Virginia. Before Great Britain adopted the modern calendar in 1752, the year legally began on March 25th rather than January 1st.
Dates falling between January 1 and March 24 during those years often carry both years. For example, a court record from February 12, 1712, was still legally 1712 for British subjects, but 1713 by modern reckoning.

Well, that explains it technically is not a mistake, but when the non-indexed records I was looking at are indexed the 1712 date will probably be indexed as written and more people will either have their timelines messed up or will spend the same hours I did trying to make sense of things such as how an estate inventory for a deceased person could be recorded three months before they wrote their will and 6 months before the will was proved in court and the inventory request order was made to the executors.

Is there a way FamilySearch can address this and save others from confusion and wasting their time trying to figure out inconsistent dates due to this antiquated dating system?

Adrian Bruce1 · May 27

@SUZANNENEEL-JOHNSON - I don't want to sound unhelpful, because these are tricky issues, but the way to save others from confusion is for them to do the hard work that you did (and a genuine 'well done' for working it out) and understand how the stuff may be indexed and recorded in FamilySearch FamilyTree. Once we (all of us) understand these issues, it usually sinks in

So maybe FS can indulge in some education - that would be a good thing.

One of the reasons that I can't agree with any proposal for a software solution is that there are so many possibilities and no consistency even in the original records.

One classic issue that I always raise at this point is that Scotland converted to New Year's Day being on 1 January in 1600 so the year can vary even within the British Isles from 1600 to 1752.

Then there are occasional records prior to 1752 where the first months are dual dated (eg 1 February 1712/13 or similar) - quite how they have been indexed can only be deduced by examination and thought.

And, of course I've been very restrictive in my view here because lots of other countries changed their New Year's Day dates in still more years. (I've just astonished myself by finding out that Nova Scotia went from Julian to Gregorian to Julian to Gregorian! Presumably this is something to do with its political history)

And how the stuff has ended up in the systems is another matter again, with a further need for thoughtful interpretation.

So yes, you raise an important point but it's one of those things that I believe can only be solved by education and care. FS possibly has a role in providing the education.

NB strictly the transition from Julian to Gregorian is not the same as changing New Year's Day - see Scotland.