His/Her Mark. Really!

[Sinann]

With the BMD register images now online I've been collecting ones I would never have bought.
I've got for 1864 to 1960 on my maternal line and more to get when the rest of the marriage and deaths come online. 
BUT
one thing has been bugging me for a while now.
His Mark and Her Mark when I know or believe the person could read and write.
Couple of examples.
One of great grandfathers signed both census - the enumerator didn't write his mark on the signature, yet on every one of his children's births his name is marked as 'his mark'.

My grandmother taught English, worked as an interpreter signed her marriage cert (no her mark)
signed her first child's cert (no her mark) but when they moved house her next two children's certs have 'her mark'. I knew her, I know she could read and write.

One of great grandmothers I'm not sure if she could read and write but on the Census it says she can, her mark is on all her children's births but when she registered her son's death in Jan 1913 there is no 'her mark' in Feb 1913 when she registered her husband's death there is a 'her mark', same registrar for both deaths.

Any one else notice this type of inconstancy, is it a case that the registrars just assumed these people couldn't sign their name so didn't even give them the chance.

I've found some whopping errors (grand uncle Daniel was not a girl called Jane  ) but this one is annoying as in case of one great grand father the children's certs is the only official record I have that would record if he could read and write. He died before the 1901 Census and married before 1864. I had assumed he couldn't but now I'm not so sure.

[Marmalady]

Yep, many poorer people were in awe of officialdom -- so if told to "make your mark" they would do so even if they could read & write

I have an example of someone who successfully ran a grocers shop for decades after she was widowed young so was presumably literate & numerate -- but made her mark when registering her mother's death

[gaffy]

Flora Thompson, in the semi autobiographical 'Lark Rise to Candleford', at times provides an almost documentary portrait of the lives of ordinary country folk in England in the late 1800s. It offers some lovely little insights into literacy, including this line about signatures:

'... for many who could read and write sufficiently well for their own humble needs would modestly disclaim any pretensions to being what they called 'scholards'.  Some who could write their own name quite well would make a cross as signature to a document out of nervousness or modesty.'

[Sinann]

I've no trouble accepting that for some of them but two of the above, my great grandfather and my grandmother I'd be surprised at.
My great grandfather simply because of the character of the man and my grandmother because it only happened when they moved to a new town, so she had registered a child before, I'll have to wait to see the later births after they moved again to see how she got on, hopefully her husband didn't register them all, but of course they won't be online for some time yet.

Yet another thing where what is written down on a record isn't necessarily fact. The list gets longer............

[aghadowey]

My grandfather's grandmother attended a local girls' school so she should have been able to write her name. In the 1901 census her census form was signed yet a few years later her Will is marked with an X. I thought perhaps by the time her Will was done she might have been too frail (in her 90s) to sign. Then I looked at the 1901 signature and made a tracing (thinking it would be nice to have a copy of it) and then made a tracing of her brother's (living next door) and what do you know- it is the same handwriting!