According to the PR, Elizabeth Shells was born 23 May 1665 in Hayton, father was John Shells.

Shared note	According to the PR, Elizabeth Shells was born 23 May 1665 in Hayton, father was John Shells. This has been copied into the BT as 19 May 1664. (BT Mormon ref 503499/2). What is the correct date? I argue that neither is correct, that the correct date was 23 May 1664. What I think happened was that the original PR had some missing items. If you look at the sequence, we find all the baptisms for 1664 and 1665 in sequence, then, after 5 March 1666 (written as 1665 due to the Julian-Gregorian notation before Lady Day 25 March), the priest has written: "these names omitted and to be in the year 1664". The first entry is "Elizabeth Shells daughter of John Shells of Hayton was baptized May 23 1665". Strange that he has specified 1665 not 1664. The subsequent entries are for 29 May (no year) and then Elizabeth's husband "George son of George Hopkinson baptized 4 August 1664", followed by other entries for 1664. How are we to interpet this? Is the date of Elizabeth's birth 1665 as written or 1664? Let us look now at the BT for 1664. Here the priest has tried to get all the entries into chronological order. So he has started with Phillip Louedine 11 May, Thomas Handby 18 May, then we come to Elizabeth Schells which he had entered as 19 May, then we have Mary Dewicke 22 May, Ann Arnall 26 May, Mary Nicolson 29 May. and George Hopkinson 4 August. He had just written "eighteenth" and so when copying the entry for Elizabeth, he wrote "nineteenth" instead of "three and twentieth". The fact that he has inserted Elizabeth's birth into 1664 and not 1665 as originally written indicates to me that the date was in reality 1664 (did they do the transcripts every year?), hence I think the correct date was 23 May 1664. The relevant files should be looked at this order: tag 4813: PR 1665: contains birth entries for 1665 and 1666. tag 4816: PR 1665 and missing 1664 entries. This establishes the time sequence and shows that the mssing entries were inserted after March 5 1666.You can see the entry for Elizabeth Shells written as May 23 1665. Perhaps the priest had seen the previous entries as 1665 and so continued with 1665? tag 4890: PR ommitted items 1664, which also includes the birth of Elizabeth Shells and George Hopkinson. tag 4888: BT for 1664. Note Elizabeth Shells included as 19 May tag 4886: BT for 1664. You can see both Elizabeth Shells (19 May) and George Hopkinson (4 Aug)

Shared note

According to the PR, Elizabeth Shells was born 23 May 1665 in Hayton, father was John Shells.
This has been copied into the BT as 19 May 1664. (BT Mormon ref 503499/2).
What is the correct date? I argue that neither is correct, that the correct date was 23 May 1664.
What I think happened was that the original PR had some missing items. If you look at the sequence, we find all the baptisms for 1664 and 1665 in sequence, then, after 5 March 1666 (written as 1665 due to the Julian-Gregorian notation before Lady Day 25 March), the priest has written: "these names omitted and to be in the year 1664". The first entry is "Elizabeth Shells daughter of John Shells of Hayton was baptized May 23 1665". Strange that he has specified 1665 not 1664. The subsequent entries are for 29 May (no year) and then Elizabeth's husband "George son of George Hopkinson baptized 4 August 1664", followed by other entries for 1664. How are we to interpet this? Is the date of Elizabeth's birth 1665 as written or 1664?
Let us look now at the BT for 1664. Here the priest has tried to get all the entries into chronological order. So he has started with Phillip Louedine 11 May, Thomas Handby 18 May, then we come to Elizabeth Schells which he had entered as 19 May, then we have Mary Dewicke 22 May, Ann Arnall 26 May, Mary Nicolson 29 May. and George Hopkinson 4 August. He had just written "eighteenth" and so when copying the entry for Elizabeth, he wrote "nineteenth" instead of "three and twentieth". The fact that he has inserted Elizabeth's birth into 1664 and not 1665 as originally written indicates to me that the date was in reality 1664 (did they do the transcripts every year?), hence I think the correct date was 23 May 1664.

The relevant files should be looked at this order:
tag 4813: PR 1665: contains birth entries for 1665 and 1666.
tag 4816: PR 1665 and missing 1664 entries. This establishes the time sequence and shows that the mssing entries were inserted after March 5 1666.You can see the entry for Elizabeth Shells written as May 23 1665. Perhaps the priest had seen the previous entries as 1665 and so continued with 1665?
tag 4890: PR ommitted items 1664, which also includes the birth of Elizabeth Shells and George Hopkinson.
tag 4888: BT for 1664. Note Elizabeth Shells included as 19 May
tag 4886: BT for 1664. You can see both Elizabeth Shells (19 May) and George Hopkinson (4 Aug)

Alive Dead Death>100 Death<=100 Birth>100 Birth<=100 Roots Leaves
Given names	Surname	Sosa	Birth		Place		Death	Age	Place	Last change
Elizabeth SHELLS Father: JOHN SHELLS				23 May 1664	359	Hayton, Notts	2				Never	F	YES	YES
Show parents

Both alive Widower Widow Both dead Roots Leaves Not married Marriage>100 Marriage<=100 Divorce Multiple marriages
Given names	Surname	Age	Given names	Surname	Age	Marriage		Place		Last change
Show parents