How to interpret Quaker dates entered after 1752 but referring to before 1752?

Question

Consider the following Quaker document:

• http://sharing.ancestry.com/5454387?h=94e830

Which Ancestry.com shows as having these details for Hannah Wright:

• Name: Hannah Wright
• Birth Date: 27 Nov 1751
• Birth Date on Image: 27 Ninth 1751
• Birth Place: Orange, North Carolina
• Father: John Wright
• Mother: Rachel Wright
• Event Type: Birth
• Monthly Meeting: Cane Creek Monthly Meeting
• Historical Meeting Data: Search for this monthly meeting in the 'Quaker Monthly Meetings Index'
• Yearly Meeting: North Carolina Yearly Meeting
• Title: Records 1814, Volume 11
• Meeting State: North Carolina
• Meeting County: Alamance

Source Citation: Guilford College; Greensboro, North Carolina; North Carolina Yearly Meeting Minutes.

Source Information: Ancestry.com. U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681-1935 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014. Original data:

• Swarthmore, Quaker Meeting Records. Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania.
• North Carolina Yearly Meeting Minutes. Hege Friends Historical Library, Guilford College, Greensboro, North Carolina.
• Indiana Yearly Meeting Minutes. Earlham College Friends Collection & College Archives, Richmond, Indiana.
• Haverford, Quaker Meeting Records. Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania.

Description: This collection of Quaker meeting and vital records is one of the first of its kind. These records from monthly meetings have been brought together to form the most extensive searchable online database.

On the left page, it reads:

John Wright son of James Wright & Mary Wright was  Day Mo. (Heading over dates)
born in Pennsylvania in Chester County 4-11-1716
Rachil Wright Daughter of Joseph & Margret Wells
was born in Maryland Prince George’s County 27-3-1720
William Wright son of John & Rachel Wright was born
In the province of Maryland prince George’s County 2-1-1738
Mary Wright daughter of John & Rachel Wright was born
In the province of Maryland prince George’s County 24-7-1739
Joseph Wright son of John & Rachel Wright was born
In Maryland prince George’s County 12-12-1740
Margret Wright daughter of John & Rachel Wright
was born in Maryland prince George’s County 12-11-1742
Charity Wright daughter of John & Rachel Wright was
Born in Maryland prince George’s County 13-11-1742
Rachel Wright daughter of John & Rachel Wright
was born in Maryland prince George’s County 10-11-1747
John Wright son of John & Rachel Wright was born
in Maryland prince George’s County 12-12-1748
Sarah Wright daughter of John & Rachel Wright was
born in North Carolina Orring County 23-12-1749
Hannah Wright daughter of John & Rachel Wright was
born in North Carolina Orring County 27-9-1751
James Wright son of John & Rachel Wright was
born in North Carolina Orring County 25-5-1753
Susannah Wright daughter of John & Rachel Wright 
was born in North Carolina Orring County 16-4-1755
Elizabeth Wright daughter of John & Rachel Wright 
was born in North Carolina Orring County 15-12-1756
Nathan Wright son of John & Rachel Wright 
was born in North Carolina Orring County 7-10-1758

And the entry spans before and after 1752. So would the person have left the Julian dates alone when entering in this document or would they have converted them to Gregorian? I expect they would have been left alone, and that is how ancestry.com is showing this date (27 Nov 1751), but I would like confirmation.

Answer 1

This is a good question I had not previously been aware of the issue, now I have to go back and check the scope of applicability and some of my own records.

A read couple of guides on this particular subject, the general guidance between those guides I got is two fold:

1. Do not change them and take them as written in the original document; especially in your case where they exist on the same page.
2. Do the conversion and keep it in your electronic record as a secondary date for the event for use with supporting records from outside of the Quaker community for the persons or entity digitizing them may use either format.

One point made is that it was not a hard switch where everyone changed on the same time and it was sometimes a group-by-group adoption and during transition periods double dating was common practice which could make it more confusing. The Rootseeker's article below is the best summary article but the others are pretty good too.

References:

http://www.rootseekers.org/wp-content/uploads/articles/quaker_calendar.pdf http://www.erblandbrown.org/before_1850/documents/QuakerDates.pdf http://ncgenweb.us/nc/guilford/quaker-dates/

http://www.adamsonancestry.com/calendar/