Archiver > QUAKER-ROOTS > 2002-03 > 1016585979

From: "Horace B. Peele" <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Dates
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:59:39 -0600
References: <010e01c1cf5e$0ec743a0$0200a8c0@paul><20020318.065930.-133143.3.bjcharn@juno.com><009601c1ce97$27a23550$0200a8c0@paul><002701c1cf26$d503fdc0$95c7fea9@g4h7m4><3C972AB5.68C6@ix.netcom.com><010e01c1cf5e$0ec743a0$0200a8c0@paul>
In-Reply-To: <a05101500b8bd2f23d329@[]>

Good points, Jean...


At 12:44 PM 03/19/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear Quaker Lists Members,
>I do not convert dates for one very good reason. Unless I have seen the
>original entry myself I can not be sure that the date I am starting with
>is correct date or not and also I can not be sure that I am converting it
>correctly. So I leave the dates I find alone and usually state I have
>not changed the date that my source had.
>I also am not sure we need to be so overly concerned about dates. I
>believe our forefathers were more interested in staying alive than
>worrying about the exact date of their birth or the birth of their
>children. I believe this is something that us 21st. century people are
>concerned with and maybe even a little too much.
>In England up until the late mid 1800s, my researcher in England told me,
>often when a baby was christened they would probably tell the vicar " "He
>was born two days after the full moon" or "the day before we planted our
>south field" and etc. She said until the railroads came each village even
>had a different time. I beleive by 1837 they were to record in their
>county the record of child's birth but many did not. I have found the
>date of birth when christened differing from the civil record recorded
>date of birth.
>Most member of the Society of Friends could read or write but I am sure
>that different monthly meetings adopted the new calander at different
>times. Some yes recorded that date and others I do not believe did. If
>you lived in a region where people could not read or write, the people
>usually estimated their age, or over the years changed the date. Again
>surviving, having shelter, clothing and feeding the family was most important.
>The marriage date of my great grandparents is written in the original
>records of the Cedar Creek Monthly Meeting of Friends with two different
>dates. I know which one is correct because I have the original marriage
>record with all of the signatures but this was not acceptable to a member
>on this list and they kept the wrong date from Quaker records. ;-) I
>decided I knew what was correct and it did not matter that much. My
>mother recorded my husband and my date of marriage wrong by a year in the
>Quaker records. Glad I did not have a nine month baby, it would have been
>born before our marriage. She had the year as 1966 instread of 1965. So
>if you get hold of the actual Quaker record, I was not married a year and
>nime months when my baby was born. She was thinking I married ten years
>after my brother and that is almost true. I married ten years and one
>week after my brother. I married on Christmas Eve Day and he on New Years Day.
>Have a great afternoon!
> or
>"Watch What You Say or Do, You Might Sell Your Parrot To The Town Gossip and
>If You Don't Have A Parrot Someone Above May Be Watching You"
>Register Report: http://www.harenet.net/~jeanlee/Leeper%20Genealogical.html
>Every Name Index: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee
>Marion County IA Gen.Soc.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iamcgs/Index.html
>==== QUAKER-ROOTS Mailing List ====
>Free Online Virus Scan: http://housecall.antivirus.com/pc_housecall/
>Viruses, Trojans, and Worms: http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/virus.html


(Looking for Peal, Peel, Peelle, Peelle descendants)
.The First Peelle Family In America [Peelle, Peele, Peel, Peal].
Visit all my sites from - http://www.horace.peele.com
Sons of The American Revolution # 151084
Horace Peele, 12806 Chateau Forest, San Antonio, TX 78230
_________________ô¿ô For More Peeles__________________

This thread: