shows two conflicting dates deriving from two sources. I believe Baily
may be wrong. My hypothesis is that the original source shows the date
as being the 24th day of the tenth month of 1644. Since England and its
colonies did not convert to the Julian calendar until the mid-eigtheenth
century, the new year did not begin until March. Hence December was still
the tenth month in 1644. A more recent researcher may have just counted
out ten and got to October (which as you no doubt know - was the eighth
month in the 1600s).
shows two conflicting dates deriving from two sources. I believe Baily
may be wrong. My hypothesis is that the original source shows the date
as being the 24th day of the tenth month of 1644. Since England and its
colonies did not convert to the Julian calendar until the mid-eigtheenth
century, the new year did not begin until March. Hence December was still
the tenth month in 1644. A more recent researcher may have just counted
out ten and got to October (which as you no doubt know - was the eighth
month in the 1600s).
