Talk:1751

1751 by the British Implementation of the Julian Calendar had No January or February or March 1-24.

Under the Julian calendar the first day of the (legal) year was 25 March. So, January and February 1751 were skipped. After the last day of December 1751, the following January and February would have been the last two months of 1751. But with the calendar change, that January and that February were instead attributed to 1752.

Some newspapers in the British North America were starting their year in January prior to 1751, for example the Pennsylvania Gazette and the Maryland Gazette. The Virginia Gazette started the year on March 25 and hence there are no January, February or March issues in 1751 until March 28. Those months did not exist. The Quaker records clearly indicate this switch as well. There were not 11th or 12th months in 1751 and no 1-24 of the 1st Month (i.e., March)

Bob1743 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is confusing. 1751 (in some countries) had no January or February and only the last part of March yet here in this article "1751" we have events listed in January and February. We need Elijah, Daniel, and other wise men to figure out what should be done! Friendly Person (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

no, it is not confusing, just confused (and completely wrong). See Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 (in US usage, "the British Calendar Acto of 1751"), specifically The change applied "after the last day of December 1751". Nowhere discarded January and February. In Great Britain and its possessions,

• the year 1750 had 12 full months beginning 25 March 1750 Julian.
• the year 1751 had nine months and one week; it began on 25 March 1751 Julian. The only "discarded" months were January, February and 3⁄4 of March, not discarded but actually recalibrated into the following year.
• the year 1752 had 12 full months beginning 1 January 1752 Gregorian, minus 11 days in September.

Clear? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

years page layout

I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page. However pre 1800 the change is largely cosmetic.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --(talk)BozMo 16:16, 11 May 2004 (UTC)