RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: mijath on Friday 26 January 18 23:36 GMT (UK)
-
Has anyone had any experience of an a person appearing to be literate at one point but illiterate at a later date?
A twice-married woman in the 1790s - in the register for the first marriage she signs her name, for the second there is only a mark. If you take my word for it that a multitude of circumstantial evidence points to this being the same person...what would you make of it?!
Did she forget after not having to write for six years? Did the clergyman presume she couldn't? Had she hurt her hand?! ;D
Or do I need to go back to drawing board after all...
-
It could be that the clergyman expected her to be illiterate, and so rather than asking her to sign asked her to "make her mark".
It would be unusual for anyone to disobey someone in authority.
That said, my mum was surprised to find that one of her great grandmothers had used a big X on one document. My aunt then commented that she could read perfectly well, but "Don't you remember? She'd lost her fingers in the mill."
-
yes on quite a few occasions, especially when looking on Irish records as they are Free to view so can get births for all the children/siblings. The question was also specifically asked on the 1901 & 1911 Irish census.
seen a mother signing X on some earlier births and not on next ones in Belfast city then signed name again when back home in more Rural area for others. Perhaps the Registrar was a bit stern and intimidating. Seen Census marking the inhabitants as literate 1911 when 1901 & all the BMD said illiterate, when looked at the writing it was the same on the Cover sheet ie the enumerators or a family friend there was a big X at signature of Head of House.
Image below is from the GRO Registrars Report of 1850 for England & Wales.
Ok is now 1918 from Ireland (as only saved a few odd snippings to computer a year ago) but by then compulsary State Education and rules restricting working ages of children had raised the figure to 96.2% male & 97.6 female for the island of Ireland. These were from http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/
I would think that in the 1790's most were illiterate so suggests a more middle class background and with that in mind whats the point of a headstone inscription if you have no idea what it says
-
How do both parties record consent on the two marriage certificates, 1790s?
Sometimes a literate person would make a mark as a consideration to the partner who cannot write.
So that they do not feel awkward.
-
Speaking from experience here ::)
- maybe the person developed a shake in the hand making it almost impossible to write hence the easy way out - make a mark. ;)
Wiggy
-
It is a common misconception that a person who makes a mark on a register cannot write.
I have personal experience of well educated young men in the 1960s making a mark because that is what they were instructed to do rather than signing their name and before anyone says the were taking the Mickey; they were not, they thought they were doing what was required.
I have often wondered what the “higher RAF echelons” thought if they read the documents “signed with an x” by pupils from a highly thought of Scottish Academy.
However back to census and registers, much would depend on the position of the person making a mark or even making an x instead of their mark (many tradesmen used individual marks in the daily life rather than signing their work)
In many situations employers frowned upon servants who could read and write they were considered “above their station”, in other situations a person may be able to sign but not read.
In an authoritarian society (as my example from the 1960s) a literate but subservient person would simple follow the instruction given, if told to sign their name they would sign, if told to make their mark they would make their mark and if told to put their cross on the line they would put their cross on the line.
Cheers
Guy
-
perhaps minister 1 was a jovial chap who drank down the local and had a few cheap quills like the ones she had used (occasionally)
minister 2 was older, stern and she feared blotting the book or breaking his favourite feather, the nib looked very delicate
-
My ancestor, an ag lab all his working life, signed the marriage register for both of his marriages (1798 & 1811) with a good clear hand. I have always wondered whether this was the only thing he could write or whether he had somehow received an education which enabled him to read and write.
There are many reasons why people made their mark rather than sign a register. In a marriage register a woman who could write and who was marrying an illiterate man might not want to appear superior to him. A clergyman might assume that people were illiterate or appear intimidating when he asked them to make their mark.
It is interesting to examine an old prison register, where one of the columns entered by the governor or clerk asked whether the prisoner was literate. A surprising number of them were, yet even today there are still many illiterate prisoners.
-
My 4xgt grandfather signed his apprentice indenture, the administration papers for his father's estate and his own will, but marked an x in the marriage register. 11 couples were married on the same day, all by the same clergyman. Four grooms and one bride early in the sequence signed their own names. One witness appears on every record and the last 5 records have the same 2nd witness too. The phrase "conveyor belt" springs to mind.
eta: this was in Sheffield in 1828
-
In earlier marriage records for my family the same witness names cropped up frequently. Turns out these people were the parish clerks.
-
Our son in law and his best man had to print their names next to their "signatures" after the latter were deemed inadequate. That was in 2008.
-
Our son in law and his best man had to print their names next to their "signatures" after the latter were deemed inadequate. That was in 2008.
Yes the guidance states
"4.26 If one or more of the signatures (including the officiating officer) are illegible, please ensure that you print the names that they relate to, in pencil, in the margin of the entry. This will help when you come to prepare the quarterly return and produce a certificate from the entry."
Cheers
Guy
-
I have personal experience of people signing in 'unorthodox' ways in the last couple of decades, e.g. a young, obviously literate and sensible man signing just his first name (no surname); a middle-aged woman signing "Mrs Smith". These, and indecipherable squiggles, are all OK as long as they are deemed to be the person's usual signature.
Melbell
-
I knew someone whose usual signature was 'Mike'. He was often told that wasn't acceptable without his surname (which he heartily disliked and rarely mentioned), so he would produce his driving licence and point out that the UK government found 'Mike' perfectly acceptable as a signature.
Last I heard, he was considering changing his name by deed poll to 'Mike Usualsignature' just to stop the hassle.
Carol
-
I knew someone whose usual signature was 'Mike'. He was often told that wasn't acceptable without his surname (which he heartily disliked and rarely mentioned), so he would produce his driving licence and point out that the UK government found 'Mike' perfectly acceptable as a signature.
Last I heard, he was considering changing his name by deed poll to 'Mike Usualsignature' just to stop the hassle.
Carol
If he was in the UK all he needed to do was call himself Mike. There is no requirement to have a surname in the UK and the only way to change ones's name is to use the new name.
Cheers
Guy
-
Quite right Guy, you and I and Mike are all aware of that. However some of the people we all have to deal with in everyday life are less enlightened and will argue with anything except an official document ::)
Yes, this was in the UK.
Carol
-
So many of you have set my mind at rest. It was niggling me because I've never seen an example of it anywhere else in my family history, people either sign with marks all their lives or signatures all their lives.
I've enjoyed the stories and suggested reasons. I suppose eyesight could also have been a reason for people who could sign changing to marks.
-
I seem to remember a chap in a high power job (Bank of England iirc) who commonly used an X as his signature on official documents, because he had so many of them to deal with.
Perfectly legal, and he would put right anybody who claimed otherwise.
-
So many of you have set my mind at rest. It was niggling me because I've never seen an example of it anywhere else in my family history, people either sign with marks all their lives or signatures all their lives.
I've enjoyed the stories and suggested reasons. I suppose eyesight could also have been a reason for people who could sign changing to marks.
No National Health spectacles in those days. Probably no opticians either.
-
I have an ancestor whom I know was literate (he was a schoolmaster) yet on some certificates he signed with 'his mark'. As other people have said it was very uncommon to question authority. My Mum very much has that attitude 'just told what you're told'. These days they show you what has been entered on certificates before saving and printing. My mum was horrified that I told the registrar she'd spelt my name wrong on my daughter's birth certificate and asked her to change it.
-
What a fascinating thread!
My ggg grandfather made his mark when registering his marriage (as did his bride) in 1782; but in 1822 signs a legal document with his name (as do all his children and his daughters' husbands). His father, named Owen Davies, at his marriage in 1754, writes a very child-like signature of 'OwenOwen' (his first name repeated) -- as if he had had some rudimentary education at some stage but had done no writing since so that he had in part forgotten how to write his name; and then he sets his mark after that signature, too.
I find the suggestions made by others that our ancestors frequently just did as they were told when invited to 'make their mark' by clergymen very convincing.
Something that has always intrigued me is whether the inability to write (even where that is known to be definitely the case) necessarily reflected that one also could not read. Nowadays, given that these two skills are taught together at an early age, it is easy to slip into thinking that of course it does; but I suspect (although with no hard evidence to support it) that that may not necessarily always have been the case. Being able to read (particularly the Bible) would surely have been of far greater importance to many folk in our history than being able to write.
CELTICANNIE
-
Being able to write only one's signature - in whatever form - may well be the coming thing. Where I live (South Australia) schools are no longer teaching cursive handwriting, and some of my well-educated, middle-aged children do not use it either. Keyboards and text-speak are rapidly making handwriting of any kind obsolete.
Didy
-
I find the suggestions made by others that our ancestors frequently just did as they were told when invited to 'make their mark' by clergymen very convincing.
Something that has always intrigued me is whether the inability to write (even where that is known to be definitely the case) necessarily reflected that one also could not read. Nowadays, given that these two skills are taught together at an early age, it is easy to slip into thinking that of course it does; but I suspect (although with no hard evidence to support it) that that may not necessarily always have been the case. Being able to read (particularly the Bible) would surely have been of far greater importance to many folk in our history than being able to write.
CELTICANNIE
I have the example of a soldier (1888) making his mark when he married, as did bride and both witnesses. A few years later he'd left the army and become a postman, so he could obviously read, or had learned in the meantime.
A report of an inspection of an elementary school in early 19thC Preston, Lancs stated that the boys could write on their slates but when they were given pen, ink & paper their efforts were very poor. The school charged 3d a week per pupil, who had to be clean and neatly dressed, so was attended by working-class children whose families had a few pence spare each week for schooling and could afford soap & water for washing. Later the same school opened a department for older/ more advanced/slightly better-off children, charging 4d, including cost of paper and books. Some pupils wouldn't have progressed beyond the writing on slates stage; some may not even have got so far. A later log book of the same school a few decades later during the Lancashire Cotton Famine mentions children not being able to attend school because their clothes had been pawned. The school roll went down when mills reopened and required older boys and girls. Before compulsory education schooling was sporadic for some children.
A report to Parliament (C1840) on employment of children in mines: (I've quoted this before on RC.)
One Scottish mine owner said he only employed boys who could read and who could write their names. He made them read an application form and sign it in his presence. It was also a way of checking they were old enough to work.
Some Scottish mines stopped a few pence from every adult man's wage for schooling of his child. If he had no child he could nominate a child belonging to someone else. A problem with this system was that the shools were so overcrowded the schoolmaster found it difficult to teach the pupils much. One school inspection found that it was standing-room only. No room to practise writing at that school, they had no desks, only benches on which they stood for lessons.