Betty and Lucy were touring the West Country on holiday. Lucy was particularly fond of old country churchyards, and in one found an extraordinary gravestone. It was that of a child who, according to the inscription, was born on 15th May 1658 and died, aged eight months, on 24th January the same year! Is this possible?
2006-10-24 00:38:08 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Trivia
It wouldn't be possible in Scotland that year, but it was in England.
Incredibly, each new year number came into use on Lady Day, the 25th of March, until 1600 in Scotland and until 1751 in England. The Act of Parliament adopting the Gregorian calendar also specified that the year number would change on January 1st, so 1751 was a very short year from 26 March to 31 Dec, and 1752 was a slightly short year omitting 3 to 13 September inclusive. But to avoid a short tax year, they ran it to 6 April 1753, and it's been like that ever since.
2006-10-24 01:28:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
bh8153 is correct...
During this period England was switching calendars.
According to the English version of the Julian Calendar, the year began March 25th, and the same days, between Jan. 1 and March 25th, belonged to different years in the "Old" and "New Styles". This caused the months, January, February, and March to be double dated.
The "Old Style" referred to above is the English version and is not the same as that used in other countries that converted to the Georgian calendar at an earlier time.
2006-10-24 02:01:38 · answer #2 · answered by decodoppler 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The second 1658 (Jan. 24) was either carved in error or time and weathering have destroyed the bottom left portion of the 9, "closing the loop", and leaving it resembling a 8.
2006-10-24 01:47:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
this was a misprint. it should have said ,died at age 8 months on the following year 1659 . In my research, alot of gravestones that old had the worng date on them.
2006-10-24 00:49:49 · answer #4 · answered by queenb 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
could it of been that the baby died while she was pregnant with it but back in those days they didn't do a D&C so she carried it full term even though it was dead?????
she would of been 4 months along in pregnancy when the baby died, then 4 months of carrying a dead baby in stomach....that would of made the baby 8 months at death.
2006-10-24 01:24:08 · answer #5 · answered by polarbaby 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay
2006-10-24 02:11:09 · answer #6 · answered by Kmart 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it's possible!
REALLY think about it.
You'll get it!
2006-10-24 00:56:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
mindgame allright....I would say not its not possible, but then again these days anything is possible !
2006-10-24 00:47:13 · answer #8 · answered by ne_patriots2005 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋