Help!

[erastes]

Happy birthday treva2007! Have a good one!

HELP! I have a real dilemma.  Most of my sources - books, internet, historians - tell me that Charles I was executed on 30th January 1649.

However!  Look at this.  An actual newspaper reporting the death of Charles I - gives full details of the execution and the speech....

in 1648...!!!!!!  What's a historical writer to do? Aside from panic, that is? It's not just on page one that is say 1648 -it says it on the last page too.

OMG - True Blood. What a great show - just gets better all the time.  Makes me gag, makes me giggle, makes me go awww, and rowrl (over moody broody Eric).  Loving it.  I wish they hadn't  shown the dog running out of the bar though, as it would have made the cliffhanger even funnier. Now that's my idea of a shifter - silly dog - nothing Alpha or sexy about that.

Comments

[erastes.livejournal.com]

as I said below.

ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(and thanks)

[mrs-norrington.livejournal.com]

I know, it's confusing. Strictly speaking if you're writing the pov of a character of the period it would be accurate to say 1648. Of course, that might confuse the reader too...so I understand the dilemma.

Since I'm studying to be an archivist I have to deal with that issue a lot. If it helps at all, there are books out there called Book of Dates that gives scads of information on regnal years, holidays, etc.


Interestingly enough, Charles II dated his regnal year in records as the year of his father's death despite not actually 'reigning' until after Cromwell's death.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

And so he should do too!

I read somewhere - Discworld I think - that the smallest particle of recorded time was that of succession, after the king dies and the new one takes over.