This is an abridged version of a published and copyrighted document. This Newsletter appears in abridged form for purposes of brevity and elimination of duplicative information appearing in conjunction with this Newsletter elsewhere on the Internet. James Raywalt
From the Editor
I am pleased to report that the first issue of the Newsletter was well received, and there seems to be considerable interest for generating more issues. I will endeavor to make each issue as interesting as possible to the subscribers.
In order to keep the genealogy organized and to get a clearer picture of how much is known and to what extent there may be questions, it would be very helpful if each subscriber could forward to me a copy of his or her research in paper form. This information will be helpful to all Enyart descendants in our quest for answers about our common ancestry. During preparation of any article, it is possible for me to overlook things. By obtaining copies of known lineages, and putting them into one central database, I will be able to better focus on those areas where work needs to be done or where confusion exists with regard to specific descendants. I will also be able to compare the work of more than one individual at a time, and by doing so, perhaps fill in gaps that may exist. I have often discovered too that one individual's research may contain clues to finding another person's ancestry. By having as much information as possible close at hand, it can be more easily reviewed for just that -- clues. Finally, the collection of research materials from as many sources as possible aids in accomplishing one of the purposes for writing this Newsletter -- the establishment of a FAMILY RECORDS CENTER.
That having been said, please send me copies of your pedigree charts, family group sheets, documentation, stories, and as much as you know about the Enyart family. If you send original materials, please indicate that they are originals and that you wish to have them returned to you. I will endeavor to do so as quickly as possible.
I hope you enjoy the second issue of the Enyart Family Newsletter. Be sure to pass along word of its existence. The more input we have, the better it will be! Let me also take this opportunity to publicly express my appreciation to Roberta Pierson for her kind assistance in the completion of this issue.
Some of the recipients of the first issue of the Newsletter asked the Editor in written correspondence what his specific connection to the Enyart lineage is. Set forth below is that lineage. In future issues, it is the Editor's hope that other Enyart family researchers will be interested in posting in the Newsletter their lineage as it is presently known. Realizing, of course, the need to protect living generations from fraudulent activities, the Editor will refrain from printing specific lineage data concerning generations born after the year 1900. Generally, this information would involve the last two or three generations of any living person's lineage. Hopefully, this effort will provide the desired protection, while at the same time not diminish the clarity of lineage connections.
Even the field of genealogy is unsafe from gimmicks and fraudulent practices, and the unsuspecting family historian can be easily taken in by such designs if he or she does not do the homework necessary to determine the facts. In the earliest decades of the 20th Century, there were hundreds of falsified genealogies in circulation, many of which were contrived by the notorious New York genealogist, Gustav Anjou, who also concocted parts of his own pedigree.
Unfortunately, the damage done by Anjou continues to rear its ugly head in the form of citations to his works in contemporary writings. That's not to say, of course, that all of what Anjou constructed was unsupported by factual documentation. Still, absent the opportunity to view the actual record citations in his and other nefarious works, the genealogist should tread carefully.
Regrettably, it seems the Enyart family was not immune to this calamity. In 1911 Mr. H.S. Enyart of New York City, purportedly a member of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, was assisting in the completion of a genealogical work (of sorts) on the Enyart family. He and a band of other individuals represented in written communications that they had applied for a $70,000 charter, establishing what would be known as the EMPIRE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION. Their objective, from all accounts, appears to have been to locate as many Enyart descendants as possible in an effort to bring a class claim in the matter of an Enyart estate not previously resolved in the state of New York.
The few letters that have come to the attention of the Editor are confusing, and without benefit of both sides of the correspondence, it is difficult to understand what connections were ultimately made and thus separate fact from fiction. However, a number of assertions were made by Mr. Enyart, including lineal connections to five signers of the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE and numerous Presidents of the United States. While it is possible that many Enyarts may find relationships in the Enyart line to some of these men, such direct lineal connections must be made through families who intermarried with the Enyarts. Today there exists a plethora of scholarly writings concerning the ancestries of the U.S. Presidents and many of the signers of the DECLARATION, none of which appears to include direct Enyart ancestry.
Among the papers sent to the Editor by Roberta Pierson (an Enyart family researcher) is a report of the address of one Mr. Bunnell of Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, on May 29, 1912. The report rambles considerably, and offers very little concrete evidence that any properties in question legally belonged to the Enyart family by the time of his writing. Rather, the document in question appears on its face to be typical of the money-making scams that plagued genealogists and family historians in the early decades of this century.
One method typically used in scams concerning most families was the placement of advertisements in personal or legal columns of many newspapers seeking the "missing" heirs in a given family. Letters would be written by one or more alleged family historians in an effort to generate interest in bringing action in a class case. As word filtered through the extended family, one or more associations, incorporated under the laws of various states, would be formed, usually requiring the payment of membership dues coupled with a periodic levy on the membership for legal fees and disbursements incurred in connection with the family's estate claim. This method is similar to that specifically found in the Enyart scam.
The Enyart family was subjected to another commonly found scam as well: the assertion, unfortunately found in many writings, that our probable ancestor was descended of royalty. As stated in Vol. 1, No. 1 of this Newsletter (p. 6), it has been asserted that Carel1 Injard was allegedly of noble birth, being a grandson or great-grandson of William the Silent of Orange, the noble Staatholder (Governor) of Holland, and, as a consequence of that connection, finds lineal descent from King Louis XIV of France. This assertion also holds that Carel was shunned by family members when he married a "commoner."
However, as the Newsletter article states, if this theory were based in fact, Carel's ancestor (grandfather or great-grandfather) almost certainly would have been an illegitimate child of William of Orange, for all of his legitimate children appear to have been identified. Furthermore, the assertion that Carel was shunned for marrying a "commoner" is absurd, for Carel himself would have been considered none other than a commoner. Were he shunned by family members, the reason almost certainly would have been due to some other factor.
With these two very important considerations in mind, and absent any sound documentary evidence to support this claim, the theory of Carel's royal descent is almost certainly erroneous. Present Enyart family historians, therefore, hopefully will abandon this assertion, and avoid proliferating it further. Likewise, it is important that we realize that family historians who accept undocumented information as being factual, contribute unnecessary confusion to the legitimate science of genealogical research. It is the Editor's hope that this brief article, coupled with that found in the first issue of the Newsletter, will serve to put to rest the declarations made previously so that we may focus our efforts on the provable facts. That having been said, however, the Editor will endeavor to bear in mind the possibility that such a connection could exist, and in the event substantial proof comes to light, report any findings in this Newsletter.
The Editor has often provided the following thought for consideration when speaking to his students of genealogy: We are the trustees of our past. In our quest for information, we should endeavor to be as accurate as humanly possible, lest we otherwise find ourselves writers of fiction. Without question, we will learn that not all men and women did great and wondrous things. When we discover an illustrious ancestry, it is easy to understand why we then become excited about our heritage; but should we feel any less prideful about our descent from common men and women as well? We delight in the accomplishments of some ancestors; but is it not just as important to become humbled by the foibles of another? Perhaps the most important gift we can give to our descendants is the knowledge that we gain of our ancestors -- accomplishments, as well as shortcomings. By passing on that knowledge -- accomplishment and shortcoming alike -- we accord our forebears a degree of respect, while also demonstrating an element of human sympathy and understanding. We add to the value of their existence, now diminished by time's passage, a tone of color, a hint of humor, and a whisper of immortality. They are our heritage, our foundation; and we may always be prideful in our knowledge of them. Hopefully, in our collective quest for knowledge of our Enyart forebears, we will succeed in conferring upon them these very things. If we do, surely we will have accomplished our objectives.
In the first issue of the Newsletter, it was stated that Carel Injard settled at Staten Island, New York, and that he probably died there at an advanced age. This statement was made based on everything the Editor has seen to date, but, like many other assertions concerning the earliest generations of the Enyart family, there appears to be no factual evidence in support of this assertion. The fact remains that Carel could just as easily have resided at the time of his death in Harlem, Brooklyn, New Amsterdam, Albany or one of the other Dutch settlements, and additional research will need to be performed in an attempt to make a better determination of his place of residence after his arrival on American soil. The Editor is grateful to Barbara Barth for pointing out this impropriety.
In the first issue of the Newsletter, it was stated that Jellis2 Inyard was born on or about February 1, 1652. The presumption has long been that if, in fact, Jellis is the son of Carel1 Injard, he was probably the eldest child who, according to the ship's passenger list, was 12 years of age when the ship arrived in 1664. If he was the eldest, then the conclusion that he was born in or near 1652 is reasonable. However, there remains the matter of identifying the source of the month and day. There appears to be no defining evidence supporting the assertion that he was in fact the eldest of the three children who came to America. The Editor would welcome a citation to any documentary evidence in support of the birth date February 1, 1652. The Editor is grateful to Maxine Daly for requesting further clarification of this matter.
It was necessary to follow up on the ship's record of Carel1 Injard. In so doing, the origin of his children's ages became clear. The Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. III, by E. B. O'Callaghan, Albany, 1850) reproduced numerous passenger lists from ships that carried the earliest Dutch settlers to New York. Page 42 of that work provides a reference to Carel1 as follows:
However, the Year Book of the Holland Society of New York, prepared in 1902 by the Society's secretary, Theodore M. Banta, notes on page 2 that "[a] side from the carelessness with which the spelling of the names appears to have been followed [in the 1850 publication, it is apparent] that grave mistakes have been made in assigning the names of localities from which the people came ... [and] a number of interesting facts, such as names and ages of children together with the first nine entries from 1654-57, have been omitted... The original record is an account book, and the entries often contain items which throw a curious light on the whole matter of transportation of the early colonists..."
The record was finally more completely printed, and may be found in New World Immigrants, Vol. I, edited by Michael Tepper (Baltimore, 1979), at page 193:
With this information, we find the source of the ages and the number of Carel's immigrant children. However, the Editor has yet to learn precisely what source provides the children's names, as shown in the first issue of the Newsletter. If anyone can provide a source for their names, please advise the Editor.
Enyart family historians have stated previously that it is believed Triente (VanWoggelum) Inyard's second husband was possibly Nicholas Baker, but never has the Editor seen an explanation of how that conclusion was reached. It was therefore a timely exercise to follow up on this allegation in an attempt to prove, or at least understand, how that conclusion was reached. In addition, absent a record specifically stating the date of her second marriage, it is desirable to narrow the time frame in which that marriage could have occurred. In order to do so, three things need to be considered:
First, evidence of Triente's subsequent marriage is found in a Release of Claim on the estate of her late husband, Jellis Inyard, signed by her at Staten Island on August 1, 1710. The document refers to her as "Trentcha Baker of Staten Island, formerly the widow and relique of Yelis Ingart decesd." From this document, it becomes clear that she was married to her second husband by that date, and there can be no doubt that Triente's married name after the death of Jellis Inyard was Baker.
Second, checking the Census of Staten Island in the year 1706, as reproduced in Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, Vol. I, John E. Stillwell (New York, 1903), at page 151, we find the resident families enumerated in columns -- men in one, women in another, boys in a third, and girls in a fourth. Studying the order of the surnames, it is clear that the members of each family are shown in family order from one column to the next.In order of appearance, the names and ages of the men and the names of the women are as follows:
[Men] [Women] John du puy 49 Peternel dupey John du peuy 24 Trinthe baker Hendryk Marling 22 Nicolus Baker 45
It becomes obvious that one of the Messrs. Dupuy and Mr. Marling did not have wives at the taking of the census, or if they did, they were not enumerated. Therefore, although no specific record of their marriage has been found, it is possible to deduce that the name of Triente's second husband was almost certainly Nicholas Baker. In addition, as his age is shown as being 45 years, making him born approximately 1661, his age would be appropriate for the husband of Triente. Assuming this conclusion to be correct and 45-year-old Nicholas Baker is the second husband of Triente, we narrow the date to sometime before the census was taken. But there is one additional very important issue that needs to be considered: Nicholas Baker's first wife was also named Triente, and she is possibly the individual enumerated in the census.
Next, it becomes necessary to address the issue of when the census was actually taken. Stillwell concludes, based on the ages of several of the men in that census, and comparing those ages with numerous records, that the census was taken in the year 1706. But see the article entitled "The Date of the Staten Island Census," by George E. McCracken, The American Genealogist, Vol. 36, pp. 67-68, which sheds additional light on the date of the census. In that article, Mr. McCracken uses, among other documents, the will of none other than our own Jellis Inyard to form his conclusion that the date of the census is probably 1708 or 1709. We can support Mr. McCracken's conclusions with additional evidence: for example, the baptism of Elsie Craven, the first child of Jacobus and Antje (Enyart) Craven.
On page 80 of Stillwell's work, we find that Elsie Creven, daughter of Cobûs Creven, was baptized April 22, 1707. Considering the contemporary baptismal habits of the Dutch, it may be presumed that she was born soon before that date, probably not more than about one month's time. As she is also enumerated on the census, we are therefore provided with an approximate time of enumeration -- as early as 1707, and, as McCracken concluded, no later than 1709.
We therefore have before us the date of Jellis's will (January 2, 1706/7), the date of its probate (March 11, 1707/8), the date of Elsie Creven's baptism (April 22, 1707), the date of the Release signed by Triente Inyard Baker (August 1, 1710), the approximate date of the census page on which the Enyarts appear (1707-1709), and the census itself. With these pieces of evidence, it is possible for us to reasonably conclude that Triente (VanWoggelum) Inyard married Nicholas Baker after January 1706/7 and before August 1710 -- a span of only 3« years, and the probability is that their marriage occurred in 1709 or 1710.
The Editor received a request that the Newsletter include the text of Jellis2 Inyard's will. Unfortunately, the Editor has not obtained an actual copy or a full transcript of the will; however, a majority of the will's text may be found in two published sources. The following transcript is constructed from an abstract found in Staten Island Wills and Letters of Administration, Richmond County, New York, 1670-1800, by Charlotte Megill Hix, C.G.R.S. (undated), pp. 83-84, and from a typewritten transcript as it appears in Charles McIntire of Colonial Virginia, by June R. McIntire Taylor and Lois M. McIntire Salisbury, priv. pub., 1981, at pp. 173-174. The original will may be found in Liber 7, page 462 of the Richmond County, New York wills, New York County Surrogate's Office. If anyone has obtained a copy of the will or made a complete transcription, the Editor would welcome a copy.
In the name of God, Amen. I, Yellis Ingart of Staten Island in the County of Richmond in the Province of New Yorke, being very well in health, but considering the brevity and shortness of my life ... will and bequeath unto my well beloved son John five pounds current money of this government more than any of the rest of my children [which may come to me]. I will and bequeath unto my well beloved children, namely John, Antea, Christine, Annanetia, Charles [and] Tice ... all my whole estate both real and personal to be equally divided amongst them after my decease Saving that in case the land and edifices come to be sold that my son John shall have the refusal if he see cause to buy it before any other person giving as much as any other person will for it. I will and bequeath unto my well beloved wife Trentchea a full third part of all my estate both real and personal during her natural life and to have the use and benefit of my dwelling house for to live in during her natural life except my son John or whomsoever of my children shall buy my estate shall build or erect another comfortable house upon the same land for her to live in which she shall except of my child or children having the use of the land which belongs to her part as above. If she see cause to hire it out then paying her the rent before any other person. Lastly I appoint and constitute my two well beloved brothers in law John Woglum and Ury Woglum to be my sole Executors of this my last Will and Testament, to take care of my younger childrens part of my estate which shall not be of age at my decease to improve it to the best advantage for theire profitt during their nonage and to see this my whole will performed as above.
Dated the Second day of January, 1706/7 Jellis IE Ingart Witnesses: Peter Hoogewater, Jan Maklys, Osweld Ford Proved March 11, 1707/8
JOHN3 ENYARD (Carel1 Jellis2) was born in or very near the year 1685,[n 1] probably at Staten Island, New York. His name appears in the 1706 Staten Island census as John Enger, with his age given as 21.[n 2] His first wife's Christian name was Alkea [or Alhoa], as evidenced by a deed of sale at Staten Island on January 20, 1721/2 wherein he conveyed to his brother-in-law, Jacob Craven, the property that had been bequeathed to him by his father. Although the family identity of John's first wife has not been certainly determined, her possible identity will be discussed in a future article in the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record.
In 1715 John was enumerated as a private in Captain John Moore's Company of Colonel Thomas Farmer's regiment of the New Jersey militia. John's first wife is believed to have died in Woodbridge, New Jersey by 1738, and perhaps as early as 1728. Certainly by 1739, and probably well before that year, he had remarried, and although no marriage record has come to light, the event likely took place at Woodbridge. His new bride was the widow, Mary Darlin, whose identity is learned from the language of John's will, which appears elsewhere in this Newsletter. Although no concise evidence has yet been located, she is possibly the daughter of Pieter Pieterson of Woodbridge. From her prior marriage, Mary had a daughter Elizabeth, who received a legacy from her step-father, John Enyard.
The identities of John's surviving children are learned from his will. It would seem from the limited records, and in particular John's will, that his first wife was the mother of only the first three of his surviving children. However, because of the scarcity of official sources, it is difficult to know precisely how many children were born to John, and to which marriage each of his children was born. From his first marriage, John's children are believed to be at least the following:
From his second marriage, John's children are believed to be at least four, and possibly five, in number, although the first one shown below may be from his first marriage. As his eldest children, including one of his daughters, were mentioned in his will before his wife, and the remaining children were mentioned after her, it is possible that those named after his wife were his children by her. If this theory has merit, it is probable that John's children by his second wife, Mary, were as follows:
John died at Woodbridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey between December 26, 1748, when his will was written, and May 19, 1763, when it was proved.
1 John's birth is also given in Early Settlers of Staten Island, New York as 1665, which may be in error.
2 The date of the Staten Island census is not precisely known, and almost certainly was taken over an extended period of time. The year 1707 is an estimate for the year in which John was enumerated.
Following is the text of the will of John Enyard as transcribed from a copy of the original document. It is found in Middlesex County, New Jersey Will Book N, page 262. The spelling of his surname in the text is "Inyard," while his signature clearly spells the surname "Enyard."
In the name of God, Amen the twenty sixth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand Seven Hundred and forty Eight, I John Inyard of Woodbridg in the County of Middlesex and province of East New Jersey being very Sick and weak in body but of perfect mind and memory thanks be given unto God therefor, Calling unto mind the mortality of my Body and Knowing that it is appointed for all men once to Dye Do make and ordain this my Last will and Testament: that is to say principally and first of all I give and Recommend my Soul into the Hands of God that Gave it and for my Body, I Recommend it to the Eart to be buried in a Christian like and Decent manner at the Discretion of my Executors Nothing Doubting but at the General Resurrection I shall Receive the same again by the mighty Power of God, and as touching such Worldly Estate wherewith it hath pleased God to bless me in this Life, I Give, Devise and Dispose of the Same in the following manner and form,
First of all my will is that all my Just and Lawfull Debts and Funaral Charges be pade out of my movable Estate.
Item I give to my well beloved Son Silas Inyard the Sum of five Shillings to be paid out of my movable Estate.
Item I give to my well beloved Son John Inyard the Sum of five Shillings to be paid out my movable Estate.
Item I give to my well beloved daughter Annah Congar one two year old Stear.
Imprimis I give to my well beloved wife mary Inyard the use and Benefit of all my Lands and houses till my two youngest Sons Come to the age of twenty one years, if She Remain my widdow but if She dyes or marrieth again, the place Shall be Rented out for the benefit of the Said two Sons David and Benjamin till they Come of age and if She Remains my widdow after the two Sons David and Benjamin comes of age, She Shall have the priviledge of Liveing with them on the place and have the third Part of the Benefit of all my Lands So Long as She Remains my widdow and a third part of all my movable Estate.
Item, I give to my well beloved Daughters Rachel Nortwak and Alche Inyard and Else Inyard the Remaining part of my moveble Estate to be Equally Divided among them three, Except my Horses and Plow and plow taklin and one Gun, a gum table and a Chest.
Item, I give to my wife's Daughter Elizabeth Darlin -- one Gum table and one Chest.
Item, I give to my wellbeloved Sons David & Benjamin Inyard all and Singular the Lands and tenements by them freely to be possessed and Enjoyed by them their Heirs and assigns forever, to be Equally Divided Between them boath and also my horses and plows and plow taklin and one gun to be Equally Divided between them boath.
And I Like wise Constitute, make and ordain my Dearly and well beloved wife mary Inyard and my friend William MacDaniel for my only & Sole Executors of this my Last will and testament and I do hereby utterly Disallow revoak and Disannul all and Every other former Testaments Wills Legacies and Executors, by me in any way before this time Named willed and Bequeathed Ratifying and Confirming this and No other to be my Last Will and Testament. In Witness whereof I have hereunto Set my hand and Seal the Day, month & year above written.
Signed Sealed Published Pronounced and Declared by the John Enyard Said John Inyard as his Last will and testament in the Presence of us the Subscribers Robert Thornell Jean Thornell James Clarkson
It becomes clear from a separate document that Mary (Darlin) Enyard declined to serve as an executor of her husband's estate, and that responsibility fell solely upon William MacDaniel. Her very brief document of declination reads:
May ye 18 Day 1763
These are To Sertify Whome theay may Consern That I Declin Staning as axere to my husbands will as witness my hand -- Witness pressent.Mary Enyart her Mark +
By virtue of the following documents, John Enyard's will was proved May 19, 1763:
Memorandum. That on the Nineteenth day of May one thousand Seven hundred and Sixty three Jean Thornell and James Clarkson, Two of the within Subscribed Evidences appeared before me Jonathan Deare Duly authorized &c. And they being duly Sworn on the Holy Evangelists on their Oaths do Declare that they were Present and did see John Enyard the Testator within named sign and Seal the within instrument and heard him Publish and Declare the same to be his last Will and Testatment. That at the doing thereof the said Testator was of sound mind and Memory to the best of their knowledge and as they Verily believe, and that at the same Time Robert Thornell the other Evidence was also Present and Signed as an Evidence as they Each did in the Presence of the said John Enyard.
Also that at the same time William MacDaniel one of the Executors Within named Came before me and was duly Qualified by taking the Oath of an Executor as by Law appointed --
Jona. Deare Probate granted by Govr Franklin &c. (in the usual form &c) Dated the same Nineteenth day of May 1763. -- Cha. Read, Regr
It has been the Editor's experience that often people do not understand the use of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR. Although a brief explanation of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR appeared in the first issue of the Newsletter (see Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 7), it would perhaps be beneficial to address the matter somewhat more thoroughly. Hopefully the explanation below will assist Newsletter readers in better understanding its usage. This explanation is taken, in its entirety, from The World Almanac and Book of Facts, Pharos Books (New York, 1991) and from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, Avon Books (New York, 1983), with minor editorial interjection.
The JULIAN CALENDAR, used by virtually all of the Western world, had been employed since the year 46 bc, having been ordained by Julius Caesar, who commissioned a Greek expert, called Sosigenes, to develop a calendar based on the movements of the sun and moon. The JULIAN CALENDAR functioned on the principle that the calendar year was 365 1/4 - days long and consequently designated each year to be 365 1/4 - days, assigning a 366th day every fourth year. Hence, the term "leap year." However, in the year 730 ad the Venerable Bede, an Anglo-Saxon monk, noted that the 365 1/4 - day year was actually 11 minutes and 14 seconds too long, resulting in approximately one extra day for every 128 years. But no effort was made to correct the error for more than 800 years after Bede's discovery.
By the year 1582, the accumulated error was estimated to have been 10 days. On October 4, 1582 the GREGORIAN CALENDAR was adopted by Pope Gregory XIII, who sponsored its development. He decreed on that day that October 4, 1582 should be called October 15, dropping the 10 days' extra time. However, this solution could only repair the damage done up to that point, for with the addition of one extra day every fourth year, the problem would recur with a result of three extra days in a period of 400 years. It was therefore determined that three of every four centesimal years (years ending in 00) would be common years. The end result is that the year 1600 was a leap year, but each of the years 1700, 1800 and 1900 were not. The year 2000 will be. The solution was clear: years divisible by a factor of 4 would be leap years, except for centesimal years which would not be, unless they are divisible by a factor of 400.
The GREGORIAN CALENDARwas immediately embraced by most of the Catholic nations, including Italy, France, Portugal, Spain and Luxembourg. Most of the German Catholic provinces, Belgium, parts of Switzerland and the Netherlands adopted the use of the calendar by the end of 1584. In 1587 Hungary espoused the calendar's usage, and finally, by the end of 1700, it was employed by the protestant provinces of the Netherlands and Germany, as well as Denmark.
Britain, however, was slower to implement its usage of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR, not finally embracing it until 1752, when the calendar was also imposed on all its possessions, including the American Colonies. The British decreed that the day following September 2, 1752 would be called September 14, 1752, a loss of 11 days. All preceding dates were to be designated O.S., signifying "Old Style." In addition, New Year's Day was moved from March 25 to January 1. Under the previous calendar, March 24, 1700 was followed the next day by March 25, 1701. Currently, one will find some records showing the last day of the year to be March 24, 1700/1, followed by March 25, 1701. Using the "O.S." method, for example, one would find George Washington's birth date written as February 11, 1731 O.S., but with employment of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR, his birth date can also be correctly written either as February 22, 1732 [dropping the 11 days and allowing for movement of New Year's Day] or February 11, 1731/2 [making neither allowance]. It is worthy of note that most modern historians choose to show Old Style dates in the latter form to save confusion.
The Swedish did not adopt the GREGORIAN CALENDAR until 1753. And to add further confusion, in 1793 the French Revolutionary Government adopted a "simplified calendar" of 12 months, each containing 30 days, with 5 extra days in September of each common year and a 6th extra day every 4th year. Fortunately, Napoleon reinstated the GREGORIAN CALENDAR in the year 1806.
The GREGORIAN CALENDAR is now used worldwide, having been employed, at least for official purposes, in European colonies after 1754, in Japan in 1873, in Egypt in 1875, in China in 1912, in Turkey in 1917, and in Russia in 1918.
To change from the JULIAN CALENDAR to the GREGORIAN CALENDAR, one should add 10 days to dates October 5, 1582 through February 28, 1700; after that date, add 11 days through February 28, 1800; add 12 days through February 28, 1900; and 13 days through February 28, 2100. And just to clarify things a bit further, because it is a source of present confusion for many, a century consists of 100 consecutive calendar years. The First Century consisted of the years 1 through 100. The Twentieth Century consists of the years 1901 through 2000 and will end on December 31, 2000. The Twenty-First Century will begin on January 1, 2001.