parish register year of death differs from Dictionary of National Biography and other printed bios

Question

 FamilySearch transcribes the burial date as 24 Jan 1694. 

However, the Cambridge University Alumni says 1695 and biographers such as Calamy, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and finally Wikipedia quote 1696 as the year.

Obviously this could have been affected by the Old Style/New Style timeframe, but that should only involve two adjacent years, not three.

I think a newspaper obit would be conclusive, if there would be any such.  

Failing that, is there anyone who could check if the transcription of the PR is accurate?

Any other suggestions?

Comments

DNB can be pretty sloppy with facts. I don't trust it much.

---

The 'up to date' online version of Cambridge alumni says 1695/6  but  is using date from ODNB.

edit agree with Ros parish reg definitely 1694/5

---

Perhaps they checked it in Wikipedia.

Too many old books (and new books) (and websites) were resistant to double-dating and preferred to be ambiguous.

Answer 1

Burial register clearly says 1694, but since it was done on January 24, then to us it would be 1695.  (But to them it was still 1694.)  And noticeably he was listed as "Mr Samuel Shaw", suggesting he was someone of importance?

Burial register image viewed via FindmyPast.

Comments

Thanks so much! So, based on the PR (the entry was probably written very near the time of the event, and interspersed with others in the same month), it was January 1694 to them.  Our WikiTree practice, if i understand correctly from https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Date_Fields#Julian_vs._Gregorian_Calendar

is to populate the date field with what it would be to us (1695), and comment on it in the profile.  Is that right?

I also noticed that a book called Nonconformity in Derbyshire: A Study in Dissent, 1600-1800 By Stephen Orchard  uses 1695.  

Calamy's 1713 publication

An account of the ministers, lecturers, masters, and fellows of colleges and schoolmasters : who were ejected or silenced after the Restoration in 1660, by or before, the Act of Uniformity ; design'd for the preserving to posterity the memory of their names, characters, writings, and sufferings

is probably the source of all the subsequent error, because Calamy actually writes 1695/6.  This was an event that occurred in Calamy's lifetime and in fact within a year of Calamy's own ordination -- still, he was possibly going by memory, rather than checking the PR!

Yes, Samuel Shaw was important in his Non-Conformist circles back then.  I don't know what the criteria is to be a Notable in WikiTree, but he is probably not all that Notable today.

Thanks again, everyone!