Dates on 16th century Parish Register

[kiterunner]

I'm transcribing some 16th century marriage PR's and they have headings such as this:
Wedings in Elizabeth 1 anno
1558

Elizabeth II anno
1459 (sic)

Elizabeth III anno
1560

Elizabeth IIII anno
1561

... and so on. I assume it means "in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth", "in the second year..." and so on, but what puzzles me is this - the dates for 1558 go from November to February, which is fine (there are only a few marriages per year), and the dates for what I presume should be 1559 go from May to August, again fine, but then for 1560 we have December to August, 1561 January to July, 1562 November to August, and so on, when I would have expected the year to run from March 25th through to the next March.

I would think the dates for each year were just in a jumble and written in any old order, but they do go in order through the months (and the days within the month), just not starting and finishing with March. Has anyone else come across a PR like this? Could it be that because Elizabeth I became Queen on 17th November 1558 they are using that as the start of the year, and then the anniversary as the start of each subsequent year? And if so then I suppose I have to adjust the year on some of the dates when transcribing?

[Phoenix]

Elizabeth came to the throne in November, so the regnal years will start in November and go through to November.

I think James 1 was one of the few monarchs where the regnal and calendar years more or less tally.

[Olde Crone]

Yes, I think you have it right, Kate, but I'm worried about you adjusting the dates. My personal bugbear is transcribers who have adjusted the dates, lol, because you can bet that someone else will come along and adjust them again, not realising they have already been adjusted and before you know it, you are in a fine old mess.

I think anyone researching in the 1500s, should be experienced enough to allow for calendar discrepancies. Anyone who isn't experienced enough has probaly got their research wrong anyway, lol, so it doesn't matter.

OC

[Phoenix]

I've found wills, land transactions etc using regnal years, but parish registers do usually start each year on Lady Day (though a few obstinately choose calendar years, just to confuse things)

[kiterunner]

I hate seeing dates that have been adjusted for the Julian / Gregorian change too, OC, but surely August 17th in the 8th year of Elizabeth's reign should be transcribed as August 17th 1566, not 1565? The PR doesn't have the year written in for each entry, only next to the first entry for each year. The software used for FreeREG (for whom I'm transcribing) forces us to key dates in January, February and most of March as double years anyway, e.g. 1565/6, and I very much doubt it will let me key 1459 in although that's what it says on the page and I know it should be 1559. But if I don't adjust the year it's going to go Nov 23 1565, Feb 12 1565/6, Jul 17 1565, Aug 17 1565, and then on to Feb 1 1566/7. I would rather key whatever date it shows on the page but in that case I would key Elizabeth I anno November XIX, December second, etc and the software won't let me do that so I might as well key the correct year or double year. I've found quite often in PR's they forget to put the new year in when it changes from one year to the next, sometimes for several years in a row, so you end up having to calculate what year it is in that case.

Mind you, I think someone has already keyed baptisms and burials for this parish so I should be able to see what they did with the year - assuming the baptisms and burials are written in the same format in the PR's. Unless they keyed from the BT's or something!

Another thing I found interesting is that the queen's name is spelt Elizabeth with a z in all the headings, but there are lots of brides spelt Elisabeth or Elsabeth in the entries. I would have expected inconsistency in the spelling of the queen's name too!

[Phoenix]

Although it would mean an awful lot of extra typing, perhaps you could put the regnal year in the notes?

There shouldn't be any BTs that early. The only possibility of duplication is if the original, paper, registers survive.

I go particularly dotty with history books, which always use new style dates.

[kiterunner]

Although it would mean an awful lot of extra typing, perhaps you could put the regnal year in the notes?

There shouldn't be any BTs that early. The only possibility of duplication is if the original, paper, registers survive.

I go particularly dotty with history books, which always use new style dates.

I think it would take too long to put it in the notes for all the records but thanks for the suggestion and the help.

[Mary from Italy]

I found one parish recently with a mixture of March-Feb and Jan-Dec years. Can't remember where it was, or the period - I'll have a look through my transcriptions tomorrow.