Did people care about having a White Christmas

[Sangahyando]

@MrDibble

Before the change of calendar in 1752, which effectively brought Christmas day back by 12 days, snow was even more likely[/COLOR] **as Christmas comes at the beginning of the season for snow. Wintry weather is more likely in January.
[/INDENT]

I get dreadfully confused by “jugglings with time” of any sort, and am quite likely confused now – kind clarification requested. If I have things rightly (I may well not): everything in the pre-1752 Julian calendar was 11 / 12 days earlier than in the post-1752 Gregorian ditto – so would snow at Christmas under the old set-up, not be less likely, than under the new one?

[Colophon]

@Sangahyando

I get dreadfully confused by “jugglings with time” of any sort, and am quite likely confused now – kind clarification requested. If I have things rightly (I may well not): everything in the pre-1752 Julian calendar was 11 / 12 days earlier than in the post-1752 Gregorian ditto – so would snow at Christmas under the old set-up, not be less likely, than under the new one?

No, you have it backwards. On a given day, the Julian *date *is earlier than the Gregorian one. So an event on a particular date will happen *later *if you are counting by the Julian calendar (eg you have to wait longer for the date to reach December 25).

We skipped 11 days when transferring to the new calendar (September 2 1752 was followed by September 14 1752). So December 25 1752 fell 11 days *earlier *than it would have done under the old calendar: in the old system the date on that day would have only been December 14.

Or, put another way, if we still used the Julian calendar, December 25 would fall on what in our present system would be well into January: January 7, to be precise, because the gap is now up to 13 days.

[Sangahyando]

@Colophon

No, you have it backwards. On a given day, the Julian *date *is earlier than the Gregorian one. So an event on a particular date will happen *later *if you are counting by the Julian calendar (eg you have to wait longer for the date to reach December 25).

We skipped 11 days when transferring to the new calendar (September 2 1752 was followed by September 14 1752). So December 25 1752 fell 11 days *earlier *than it would have done under the old calendar: in the old system the date on that day would have only been December 14.

Or, put another way, if we still used the Julian calendar, December 25 would fall on what in our present system would be well into January: January 7, to be precise, because the gap is now up to 13 days.

Thank you for the very lucid explanation – which I will keep prominently accessible from now on, for times when I’m “thrown” by this stuff. As stated in my previous post, this is an issue over which I have a great mental block.

[Martini_Enfield]

@TSBG

Only a vague cite, but I seem to remember seeing an exhibit at the Globe in London about Shakespeariana which mentioned that Frost Fairs were the result of bridges that restricted flow on the Thames, which allowed ice to build up. Once the flow of the Thames was opened up the era of Frost Fairs was over. The Little Ice Age and the snowy weather of course was a real climactic occurence, but the frozen Thames was a human creation.

I’m fairly sure the Thames was still freezing into the early Victorian era; I believe the combination of slower water flow and the cold weather had something to do with it.

[md2000]

@Colophon

No, you have it backwards. On a given day, the Julian *date *is earlier than the Gregorian one. So an event on a particular date will happen *later *if you are counting by the Julian calendar (eg you have to wait longer for the date to reach December 25).

We skipped 11 days when transferring to the new calendar (September 2 1752 was followed by September 14 1752). So December 25 1752 fell 11 days *earlier *than it would have done under the old calendar: in the old system the date on that day would have only been December 14.

Or, put another way, if we still used the Julian calendar, December 25 would fall on what in our present system would be well into January: January 7, to be precise, because the gap is now up to 13 days.

For example, Ukrainian Christmas falls Jan. 7th, and for other churches that follow eastern traditions, still celebrate on the Julian calendar. Russia did not switch to the Gregorian calendar until after the revolution.

(Which brings up the trivia question -
Q: “What month did the October Revolution happen in?”
A: “November - it happened November 10th, of course.” (Gregorian calendar)

This is the result of the drift over centuries which Gregory fixed - Centuries are NOT leap years unless the century is divisible by 4.

[Sangahyando]

@md2000

(Which brings up the trivia question -
Q: “What month did the October Revolution happen in?”
A: “November - it happened November 10th, of course.” (Gregorian calendar)

I’ve always wondered why the Communists – avid for scientific modernity and scornful of religious obscurantism (which one sees as being largely responsible for Russia’s sticking to the Julian calendar until the great switch-over) – held to calling the event, the “October” – not “November” – Revolution. Maybe “October” as a rallying-cry, somehow sounds more stirring than “November”?