3
« on: Friday 31 October 25 14:53 GMT (UK) »
I am trying to calculate a ‘could not have been born any later than’ date for a man named Thomas in the early 1630s. It is made complicated (for me, certainly) by the Julian calendar in use at the time.
Born to a father also named Thomas, he was the eldest of three children - Thomas, then Ambrose and the youngest, Benjamin.
Their grandmother Elizabeth made her Will on 25 March 1651, which I assume was ‘Day One’ of 1651/2. She then revised it four months later on 16 July 1651. Probate was granted 22 May 1652. The Will and Probate make no mention of the regnal year.
In her Will she stated, "To Ambrose and Benjamine the sonne of my sonne Thomas … at their several ages of eighteen years".
From this I deduce Ambrose and Benjamin were not yet 18 so they must have been born 18 or less years earlier, i.e. not before 25 March 1633 (the first day of 1633).
Working back, and assuming a typical 9 months pregnancy, that means the middle child, Ambrose, must have been conceived no later than about 25 June 1632.
Assuming a ‘back-to-back’ pregnancy, that therefore means that the eldest child, Thomas, must have been born at the very latest before this same date of 25 June 1632.
The Julian calendar in use at that time confuses me no end and, even though I know I’m being a bit nerdy/obsessive about this, I want to get it right.
Please can anybody tell me if my reasoning as well as my calculations are correct ? And, if not, what the correct date is for ‘Thomas, the eldest son, must have been born no later than’ ?
As always, thanks in advance for comments/suggestions etc.
ATB
Simon
Show Posts