RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Ahmed_U on Wednesday 11 February 09 20:07 GMT (UK)
-
Hi All,
I was wondering if someone would be able to help me, please. I am tracing the family tree of a very dear friend of mine who is from Canada. Her ancestors emigrated from England. I am looking at the 1911 census, and in the last column (the one where (1)deaf and dumb, (2)blind, (3)lunatic, (4)imbecile, feeble-minded), three members of the family (the head, wife and eldest daughter) have a 'x' in this column. The other kids have nothing in this column.
Can someone please tell me what the 'x' denotes? Does it mean that they had some "disability"? Or does it mean that there was nothing wrong with them? If the latter, why would some have the 'x', and some be left blank? If it means a disability, does it mean that it was none of the (1),(2),(3) and (4), but some other disability?
If 'x' does mean a disability, then I need to think about how I am going to share this information with my friend, as she has a very old mother who might get upset upon finding this out.
I look forward to a reply.
Many thanks
Ahmed
-
You can not see what is in the last column. It has to be covered up until 2012.
Are you sure the X you mention is in the last column and isn't a mark by the enumerator to show he has checked things?
When the forms were scanned a white card should have been placed over this last column - is there one on your return?
-
Hi David,
Many thanks for your reply. It was my mistake, I meant the 1901 census, and not the 1911 census (as you correctly state, the 1911 census has that column covered up).
I am attaching a picture of the column I am talking about. Please let me know what you make of the 'x'?
Thank you.
Ahmed
-
Hi Ahmed
In previous census it was usually written under deaf/dumb, blind, lunatic or imbecile what the affliction was. To give you an example my Great grandmother was blind and under the heading just mentioned it was written as blind. I can only assume the x was the lazy way out, not very helpful.
Gary
-
Hi Ahmed,
Thanks for the copy of the image.
They look like enumerators check marks to me.
All the returns I have seen when someone has a disability the enumerator has written what type of disability - and sometimes none too politely either.
I would assume that there are no disabilities marked for you friends relatives and they are as I said above just check marks.,
Hope that helps
-
Hi Ahmed and a warm welcome to Rootschat! ;D
You had me worried there, all my images of the 1911 census do indeed have that column covered up.
Regarding 'x's in that column in earlier censuses, usually they are enumerator's marks, as David has said, so I wouldn't read too much into them. Are they all by adults?
Kind regards
Gaie
Added: Out of 19 of my 1901 census images, all of them have some sort of x, tick or dash in the last column for some or all of the people listed; two people have their disabilities spelled out: "chronic bronchitis" and "lost one leg".
-
Hi Ahmed
Welcome from me too.
You could check other families on the page or a few pages either side of your image to see if the enumerator has done the same for others. If not then maybe have a look at the 1891 census to see if there is anything in those columns for the family. However 10 years previous they may not have suffered any disability so not too reliable.
Evie
-
Hi Gary, David and Gaie,
Many thanks for your replies.
I do hope this turns out to be an enumerator's mark, and not someone being lazy!
Two of them are adults (37 and 34), and the other is their 14 year old daughter. The 34 year old (wife - great grandmother of my friend whose family tree I am tracing) actually died a few months after the census, and I am waiting for the death certificate to come through from the GRO so that I can find out the cause.
I am also going to try and trace them backwards in other censuses, just to double check to see if they have any disability listed in there (although it is of course very possible that they were fine in 1891 and not in 1901).
Ahmed
-
Sorry Gaie :) didn't see your added comment - probably what has happened in this case I suspect
Evie
-
Hi Evie,
Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking. Do you have any idea of (very) approximately what percentage of people would be classified as having a "disability" in say the 1901 census? I mean, if I was to look at 50 households, and say 5 households had an x in the column for some persons, and none of the 50 households had no other writing in that column, would this mean that the 'x' probably meant disability, as one would expect at least someone from 50 households to be disabled?
Thank you.
-
Ahmed I have looked at thousands of pre 1911 census and it it is rare to see any entry in the column so if it changes to x in 1911 then I would be very wary. I can't wait until they make the 1911 census available for Durham then I could answer your question for sure.
-
Prehous,
The census in question here is 1901 not 1911 (Ahmed made a mistake in the title) so the x's in the extract are from 1901.
You will not be able to see the information on disabilities in the 1911 census until 2012 as the Govt has imposed a 100 year embargo on that part of the 1911 census
-
Hi
I wouldn't like to hazard a guess regarding percentage. Interesting question though. I wonder if anyone has done any statistics on it?
-
Welcome to RootsChat Ahmed :)
You often see X in that column (defo a check mark!) for people born out of the county. Were they?
-
Hi Ahmed,
The same applied to the family of my paternal great grandparents in 1901.
Like you .. I was very concerned at the time, and also quite surprised it referred to only the parents .. the mark appeared to be the number 4?
Then it dawned on me .. when I looked at the previous and following pages, all the people who weren't born in county had exactly the same mark .. it was a cross and not as I'd first thought .. !
Pels.
Snap Tati .. ! :)
-
Hi Tati, Pels,
Ah! Yes, the husband and wife were born near Huntingdon, as was their eldest daughter. Then they moved to Salford later on. That explains it!!!
Many thanks to you all, this is a most helpful forum, and I am sure I will be returning to ask more questions in the future as I carry on with my research! ;D
-
Prehous,
The census in question here is 1901 not 1911 (Ahmed made a mistake in the title) so the x's in the extract are from 1901.
You will not be able to see the information on disabilities in the 1911 census until 2012 as the Govt has imposed a 100 year embargo on that part of the 1911 census
Sorry Davidft my mistake getting late now, tired eyes syndrome taking hold.
-
Hi All!
The 'x's on the sheet look like they were written with a different pen and were probably added after the sheet was originally filled in, in other words, they look like statistical counting and not part of the original information. My instinct is to ignore them ;)
Prehous, you're right about earlier censuses, usually that column doesn't have any marks in it apart from specifying the disability; but the 1901 census sheets do seem to be plagued with these marks - statistical research must have taken off in a big way at that time, yawn ..... ::)
Kind regards
Gaie
-
Gaie
Thank god for that. I thought I'd lost the plot.
-
For examples of actual 1901 census pages in original colour see http://www.rootschat.com/links/02fc/ which is RG13 piece 297 folio 22 page 1, and http://www.rootschat.com/links/02fd/ which is RG13 piece 1835 folio 94 page 35.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,275241.msg1592050.html#msg1592050
Stan
-
Hi,
I found some the other day with lots of ticks in this column and thought 'goodness', but then came to the conclusion that it was the enumerators check marks.
Paulene :)
-
Hi
I wouldn't like to hazard a guess regarding percentage. Interesting question though. I wonder if anyone has done any statistics on it?
Summary tables of Persons returned as blind, deaf and dumb, deaf, lunatic, imbecile, or feeble-minded or suffering from combined infirmities, in administrative counties, and county and Metropolitan boroughs, 1901 are at
http://www.rootschat.com/links/05jr/
Stan
-
Thanks for those links, Stan - don't the coloured pages make a difference ;D
Kind regards
Gaie
PS Preshous, I'm not sure I've ever had the plot...... ;)
-
Yes Stan, thankyou, very interesting
Evie
-
Hi Evie,
Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking. Do you have any idea of (very) approximately what percentage of people would be classified as having a "disability" in say the 1901 census? I mean, if I was to look at 50 households, and say 5 households had an x in the column for some persons, and none of the 50 households had no other writing in that column, would this mean that the 'x' probably meant disability, as one would expect at least someone from 50 households to be disabled?
Thank you.
Hello Ahmed
I once came across a census with many comments in the last column. They included descriptions such as imbecile, lunatic, idiot, blind, deaf and dumb. There seemed to be more idiots than anything else.
This was a census for a workhouse. I had only just started on family history and this was the first workhouse census I had seen. It almost made me cry!
Apart from censuses for institutions, comments in the last column seem quite rare. I have found a distant relative who was deaf and dumb and another described as consumptive. They are the only two from hundreds of viewed census records. It looks as though most of them were put into institutions. What a life they must have had!
Angela
-
Hi All,
I also have a similar problem; my 4th great aunt also has a word under the "deaf and dumb, blind, lunatic, imbecile, feeble-minded." If anyone can help me translate, it would be appreciated!
Thank you xx
-
lyssy, I'd guess it's continued from the previous column. It looks like 'Glam' so perhaps she was born in Wales, in the county of Glamorgan.
P.S. I see you replied to a 16 year old discussion.
-
i wonder if the many idiots included were people with learning differences autism or dementia
it was obviously an acceptable term
-
i wonder if the many idiots included were people with learning differences autism or dementia
it was obviously an acceptable term
It was an official description of the time along with imbecile and moron
In 19th- and early 20th-century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very profound intellectual disability, being diagnosed with "idiocy".
In their charts it would be in order of disability
1. Moron IQ level 51 - 70
2. Imbecile IQ level 26 - 50
3. Idiot IQ level 0 - 25
-
i had an ancestor repeately refered to as Imbecile - we know it was Epilepsy.
Another my GGfather in the 1851 was down as cripple - which finally explained to me why he was left behind in Norfolk when the rest of his family went up to Tyneside - problem solved!!
Diddy