Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the treatment of 1800 as a
normal year was a result of the Gregorian reform in England and her
colonies, but not the treatment of year 2000 as a leap year? Under
both Julian and Gregorian systems 2000 would be a leap year.
Furthermore, the treatment of 1800 as a normal year was not the first
effect of the legislation. September 1752 was very interesting, as
demonstrated by the UNIX cal program
% cal 9 1752
September 1752
S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Jim 40N45, 111W53
=-=
Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your
own. You may both be wrong. -- Dandemis
Frank Evans wrote:
> Greetings fellow dialists and calendrists,
>
> A note about the millennium leap year that I recently came across in the
> journal History Today: When the next leap day arrives, on 29 February
> 2000, it will be, for Britain, the result of the adoption of the
> Gregorian calendar in 1752. By then most other European countries had
> already embraced the new calendar. The Act of Parliament which causes
> this first centenial leap year since then to take place was passed 248
> years and 3 months ago. Is this the longest delayed action legislation
> ever? By the way, the 1752 Act also applied to the UK Colonies
> including America (no offence intended).
>
> Frank 55N 1W
> --
> Frank Evans
