Family Historian User Group

I'm using FH version 4.1.3, and I've been doing some 'housekeeping' to tidy up my records. On the Facts tab of the Property Box, I marked some dates as falling under the Julian Calendar, ie before 1753. As I did this, I noticed that all the known or calculated ages for these events disappeared. Is this normal?

I can't even enter a calculated age manually. Where only a baptism date is known, my habit is to enter the birth date as (bef) Baptism Date, so these Julian birth dates show as eg bef [J] 23 Oct 1702. Now in the mother's property box, there is no Age field showing in the record for her children's births if (bef) Baptism Date is entered for the child's birth date. Where a known birth date is entered, the Age field is present but the age is not automatically calculated. This is only affecting Julian dates.

Maureen

ID:4623

If you put anything which FH doesn't recognise in a date field it will just record it as text and can't calculate with it. By putting a 'J' in front of the date it will not be recognised by FH as date. You can enter pre 1752 dates in the same way as post 1752 dates with the exception of dates between 1st Jan and 24th March where FH accepts dates in the format: 20 Feb 1740/41

As far as I can see FH calculates ages on pre-1752 dates correctly if the dates are entered in a format which it understands.

Gerry

Sorry, I don't see why the formula [J] 23 Oct 1702 shouldn't be recognised as a date when that is what FH itself produces when I use the Date Entry Assistant. I like to have the reminder that all dates before 1752 are Julian, not just the odd bit between January and March. The calendar affects everything in my ancestors lives!

Maureen

Well, that's one for Calico Pie - I'm just telling you what I do and how it works for me!

Gerry

I agree that the (J) is generated by FH using the date entry assistant and that it doesn't show the age as you say. My guess is that the Julian date method is supported mainly because FH tries to be 100% GEDCOM compliant but that as it is rarely used Calico have chosen only to calculate ages for the standard calendar. It is standard practice to just record pre 1753 dates in the usual way and use the double year method that Gerry mentions and FH does calculate ages when this method is used.

Many thanks Gerry and Nick for your advice. Apologies for the late response; I've been out of action for a bit. I'll obviously have to reconsider how to work with the Julian dates now I'm getting more of them. However it still seems inconsistent to me that the age field is present for precise Julian dates but not for 'bef' dates.

Maureen