Puzzle - It's driving me mad!?

Question

Is it possible for a child to be born on 15 May 1658, then die aged 8 months on 24 January of the same year?

Answer 1

the calender was changed by about 12 days around that time.... i have to go to sleep ... so tired, but it sounds plausible.... try google 'julian calender'
because they didn't used to know about leap year and had to adjust for correct or pretty soon winter would be in spring, etc

Answer 2

Miss Behave has given you the correct answer I was about to post - until the late 16C new year was on 25 March. History books usually correct this so that the year starts on 1 January whenever it was, but to the people living at the time, 31 December 1658 was followed by 1 January 1658; 24 March 1658 was followed the next morning by 25 March 1659.

Answer 3

Yes read text below it had to do with the changing of the calendar. The beginning of the year used to be on 25 March and not 1 January but when they changed this there was an overlap.

" There is considerable evidence of contemporary dual dating. For example, some essentially contemporary paintings of the execution of King Charles I on Tuesday 30 January 1648 have a title bearing the date 30 January 1648/9. Samuel Pepys's diary begins on New Years Day (1 January) 1660, but it is clear that this is actually the year 1659/60. So was the Calendar Act in 1751 merely formalising common usage, or was it a radical change ? The preface to one modern book of Samuel Pepys's diary states that using 1 January as the start of the year was common practice at that time - i.e. 1660.
I've seen a pamphlet at Broughton Castle which refers to a speech made on Thursday 27 January 1658 - and the pamphlet states it was printed in 1659. In order for the day to be a Thursday, this must be referring to 27 January 1658/9 (i.e. the pamphlet was printed some months after the speech), however the year is specified as 1658 - and not as 1658/9.
So the year was commencing on 25 March in 1658, but on 1 January in 1660 ?
Perhaps the answer is connected with the coronation of King Charles II in Scotland on 1 January 1651 - that's a Scottish date, for a Scottish king. Perhaps the Royalist cause used 'Scottish' dates, and the Parliamentarian cause used 'old style' dates ? Although this theory maybe doesn't sit well with the fact that from 1654 Pepys had been steward to Edward Mountagu, a General-at-Sea in Cromwell's Protectorate...
King Charles II did not become king of England until 8 May 1660 (coronation on 23 April 1661), after the start of Samuel Pepys's diary."

Answer 4

No it's not.
If born May 1658 AD then 8 months later is Jan 1659AD
If born May 1658BC then 8 months later is Jan 1657BC.

The calendars did miss a short space of time, but that was only 14 days (or so) when the Greogorian calendar replaced the Julian, and that was not until the 18th Century (or later depending where you live - Russia was 20th Century).

Just read above about the March start of the year, so maybe it is....

Answer 5

I think it may be a question of calendars. The Gregorian calendar (the modern one we still use today) was introduced some time in the 16thC from memory. Before that we all used the Julian calendar (from Julius Caesar the Roman head-bloke). I think that until recently the USSR still used the Julian calendar. There were differences between the two calendars, the reasons for which have been lost in my gin-soaked memory, but something to do with 365.25 days per year (Gregorian, from Gregory, another fine name for a Roman head-bloke or monk) whilst the Julian calendar didn't take into account leap-years and such. I'm sure that you can read up more on this on the internet.

Anyway (and briefly!) thats my sort of answer. The 15th May 1658 (17thC) was probably in Julian-speak whilst the 24th January was in Gregorian.

I would really like to know what prompted this Question, so please add this information when you choose the best answer (thanks).

Answer 6

The year ran from March to march at that tıme so January would follow may ın the same year I have copıed the extract for you below

When reading English dates prior to 1752, regard the years with care. Was the date written by someone from that time? - in which case remember the year ran from March to March. However if the date was written by a modern researcher, did they understand the calendar in place at the time - and what system were they using when they described a date such as 2nd January 1701? To avoid confusion the convention is to write that date as 2nd January 1701/2 which uniquely identifies the year. (1701 in this case being the year according to the old Julian Calendar, and 1702 according to the "new" Gregorian Calendar.)

Answer 7

This is from that wretched matchbox isn't it?? The only answer I can figure out is that it is something to do with the calendar reform of 1752, when the Gregorian calendar was introduced to England. There seemed to be a huge confusion about the date and even the year for a long time afterwards (see link below for some examples in the latter 18th century). Perhaps the child was born in a country that had one system, and died in another, 8 months later, that reckoned the date to be a year earlier. Convincing?

http://www.adsb.co.uk/date_and_time/calendar_reform_1752/

Answer 8

not possible January is 8 months after May so it would have to be 1659 not 1658. Unless they were born in 1657 and died in 1658.

Answer 9

Yup its possible! If and only If you can borrow the car from the movie Back to the Future or the time traveller device from the movie The Time Machine. BC or AD it can go to any place in time past present and future. And in time itwill solve your puzzle heheheh.Yeah! Yeah! what your thinking right now after reading my answer is the answer to your puzzle. Good you know how to drive but be not madly coz it may result to accident! but be truly and deeply like savage garden.

Answer 10

Didn't the calender change some time a long time ago? I seem to remember something about months being missed out because of a change from one sort of calender to another. Sorry, very vague but it's a hunded years since I was at school!

Answer 11

Negative