Author Topic: imbecile???  (Read 6487 times)

Offline KatPez

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
imbecile???
« on: Wednesday 23 May 07 21:36 BST (UK) »
~~~~~~~~

I've just found out my great great grandmother was listed as an imbecile in 1891, however in 1901 she wasn't. Is this common??  Also what does it mean by imbecile???
Nicholson - Hargrave/Raunds
Gates - Hargrave
Miller - Lytham
Kelly/Kelley - Cumbria/Isle of Man
Linnell - Silverstone
Major - Towcester
Martin - Cornwall/Isle of Man
Davy - Cornwall
Ayres - Helmdon
Hall - Rugby/Harborough Magna

Offline toni*

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,549
    • View Profile
Re: imbecile???
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 23 May 07 21:39 BST (UK) »
not sure if your situ. is normal but in 1891 they only had two listing for ppl that had problems lunatic or imbecile i think one was from birth and the other illness appeared. sometimes on the census ppl were listed as death/dumb etc.
Holman & Vinton- Cornwall, Wojciechowskyj & Hussak- Bukowiec & Zahutyn, Bentley & Richards- Leicester, Taylor-Kent/Sussex  Punnett-Sussex,  Bear/e- Monkleigh Gazey-Warwicks

UK Census information is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchive

Offline KatPez

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: imbecile???
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 23 May 07 21:41 BST (UK) »
So could I be right in thinking that she was just ill at the time of the census (she was only 17 at the time). 

She died at an early age as well although I' don't know if this is connected.
Nicholson - Hargrave/Raunds
Gates - Hargrave
Miller - Lytham
Kelly/Kelley - Cumbria/Isle of Man
Linnell - Silverstone
Major - Towcester
Martin - Cornwall/Isle of Man
Davy - Cornwall
Ayres - Helmdon
Hall - Rugby/Harborough Magna

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: imbecile???
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 23 May 07 22:45 BST (UK) »
The exact definitions of terms such as 'lunatic', 'imbecile', 'idiot' and 'feeble-minded' are extremely problematic. According to the 1881 Census Report;
No accurate line of demarcation can be drawn between the several conditions indicated by these terms. Speaking generally, however, the term idiot is applied in popular usage simply to those who suffer from congenital mental deficiency, and the term imbecile to persons who have fallen in later life into a state of chronic dementia. But it is certain that neither this nor any other definite distinction between the terms was rigorously observed in the schedules, and consequently no attempt has been made by us to separate imbeciles from idiots. The term lunatic also is used with some vagueness, and probably some persons suffering from congenital idiocy, and many more suffering from dementia, were returned under this name.
Considering that householders, who could be illiterate, were being asked to give information about medical disabilities without any definition of the terms being used the answers should be treated with caution. Also they would be unwilling to admit that anyone in the family had medical disabilities.
When ‘feeble-minded’ was substituted for ‘idiot’ in the 1901 census the number of persons recorded with mental disability rose markedly, because, apparently the former term was considered much less derogatory than the latter.
Some terms do have a formal definition in the UK although they are no longer used
Term Idiot  IQ 0 to 25  Modern term Severe learning disability
Imbecile  25 to 50  Moderate learning disability
Feeble minded (moron)  50 to 70  Mild learning disability
Those with an IQ of less than 50 usually need care throughout life and are unlikely to educable in the formal sense
Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline LizzieW

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 11,026
  • I'm nearer to finding out who you are thanks DNA
    • View Profile
Re: imbecile???
« Reply #4 on: Thursday 24 May 07 00:23 BST (UK) »
Treenie - my guess is she was probably of below average intelligence.  She surely couldn't have only had an IQ of between 25 and 50 (Stan's posting) or she wouldn't have been your g.g.grandmother!

Liz

Offline KatPez

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: imbecile???
« Reply #5 on: Thursday 24 May 07 07:44 BST (UK) »
cool.  thanks for your help.
Nicholson - Hargrave/Raunds
Gates - Hargrave
Miller - Lytham
Kelly/Kelley - Cumbria/Isle of Man
Linnell - Silverstone
Major - Towcester
Martin - Cornwall/Isle of Man
Davy - Cornwall
Ayres - Helmdon
Hall - Rugby/Harborough Magna

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: imbecile???
« Reply #6 on: Thursday 24 May 07 08:54 BST (UK) »
The term IQ, that is Intelligent Quotient, was only coined in 1912, so the later definitions I gave would not necessarily apply to a person in 1891-1901. It is strange that she was classed as an 'imbecile' as that was usually a term used for someone who had become demented in later life. As I pointed out;
Considering that householders,...... were being asked to give information about medical disabilities without any definition of the terms being used the answers should be treated with caution. 

Was your great great grandmother at home, or in an institution? Could you give the reference so that the entry can be looked at?

Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline aghadowey

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 52,517
    • View Profile
Re: imbecile???
« Reply #7 on: Thursday 24 May 07 09:13 BST (UK) »
I know of children classed as imbecile in 1901 census (probably were what we would now term autistic).
Away sorting out DNA matches... I may be gone for some time many years!

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: imbecile???
« Reply #8 on: Thursday 24 May 07 15:00 BST (UK) »
It is strange that she was classed as an 'imbecile' as that was usually a term used for someone who had become demented in later life.
Stan

This statment does not apear to be applicable to the census returns.
A simple search of the 1891 census for 'imbecile' gives eleven for children between the ages of 5 and 10. One family has four children shown as such, but in the 1901 census two of them have no disability shown. A different child is in a institution in 1901 and is noted as 'imbecile from birth'. There are also five who have been wrongly transcribed as imbecile.

From the report on the 1901 Census. http://www.rootschat.com/links/01kf/
Doubt has often been expressed as to whether the value of the information relating to mental infirmities which may be obtained from the ordinary Census Schedule is sufficient to warrant the continued demand for such details at the hand of the English householder.
It had been noted and proved that the number of idiot and imbecile children enumerated at previous Censuses were considerably underated; and it may be presumed that the substitution of Feeble-minded for Idiot has resulted in a more correct enumeration of mentally unsound children.


Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk