RootsChat.Com

Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: warpo on Wednesday 07 March 18 09:58 GMT (UK)

Title: What was wrong with this person
Post by: warpo on Wednesday 07 March 18 09:58 GMT (UK)
Could anyone please help me decipher what was noted being wrong with this person.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: Jebber on Wednesday 07 March 18 09:59 GMT (UK)
Lunatic unfortunately.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: warpo on Wednesday 07 March 18 10:09 GMT (UK)
Thanks for your reply, is it possible to be considered a lunatic and still working?

Maybe I should give you the full line of the census.

He lived for a further 30 years and the 1881 and 1891 never noted any issues, just this census in 1871.

He also worked as a farmer and shepherd until his death, so I would assume it'd be difficult if he was lunatic.

He Lived at Banks Lane here. The "L" on Lane is very different if the word i'm looking for starts with an L.

Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: Jebber on Wednesday 07 March 18 10:38 GMT (UK)
As a farm labourer I would think it quite possible, lunacy covered a variety of levels, including what today would be described as having learning difficulties.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: warpo on Wednesday 07 March 18 10:41 GMT (UK)
Ahh I see, that would explain it then. Thank you very much.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: Viktoria on Wednesday 07 March 18 11:26 GMT (UK)
Yes, and many people who had learning difficulties would today be trained and could do a variety of jobs.
Sadly that was not done until quite recently.
There is a café at an old hall in Greater Manchester,  run by the local council,where many of the staff have learning difficulties.On our visits we were served politely,it was very clean and the staff were friendy.They were very conscientious in that dirty pots were promptly removed,tables cleaned and we were thanked for our visit.
Vandals set fire to the café and it is hoped is open again.
Also they were obviously happy. That is everyone`s birth right.
Poor man ,he would not be expected to be able to do very much. Let`s hope he was kindly treated.
                                                             Viktoria.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: warpo on Wednesday 07 March 18 11:38 GMT (UK)
Was a shock to be told Lunacy. Id have thought working all his life, married with loads of kids, lunacy was the last thing on my mind.

I did noyice there was a tick next to number 3 - imbecile or idiot.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: Christine53 on Wednesday 07 March 18 12:08 GMT (UK)
Alternatively , is it perhaps the word Lincoln ? The birthplace isn't written very clearly and the word could be an attempt at clarification , although that would be quite unusual.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: BrazilianBombshell on Wednesday 07 March 18 12:21 GMT (UK)
One comment for an ancestor of mine, under the same column in the 1891 census, states a 9 year girl as "petulant". 
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: marie85 on Wednesday 07 March 18 12:29 GMT (UK)
Back in these days, women that were hormonal due to their monthly comings, or pregnancy, could be certified as lunatics if (I think it was 2 medics) agreed. Quite often, husbands used to have their wives certified as a lunatic in order to get them locked up out of the way. I'm not sure exactly when this stopped happening but there was a mother and child home in our local town until the 1950s I think just it was, with many of the women having been placed in there for this reason and had spent almost their entire lives in there.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: JenB on Wednesday 07 March 18 12:32 GMT (UK)
Alternatively , is it perhaps the word Lincoln ? The birthplace isn't written very clearly and the word could be an attempt at clarification , although that would be quite unusual.

There seems to be a question mark after his birthplace. I think the word could indeed be Lincoln. It isn't in the same handwriting as the rest of the page, which indicates it's been written in later, and not by the enumerator. Possibly by someone extracting birthplaces for statistical purposes.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: Millmoor on Wednesday 07 March 18 12:33 GMT (UK)
I agree with Christine 53 that the word is Lincoln.

William
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: Bookbox on Wednesday 07 March 18 13:26 GMT (UK)
I agree with Christine 53 that the word is Lincoln.

So do I.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: JenB on Wednesday 07 March 18 13:27 GMT (UK)
There seems to be a question mark after his birthplace.

On second thoughts I don't think it's a question mark. I think the enumerator wrote Lincolnshr and I misinterpreted the superscript 'r' as a question mark.

However, I still agree  that the word in question is Lincoln, and it's an attempt at clarification of the county, which unfortunately has been written in the infirmities column.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: Geoff-E on Wednesday 07 March 18 15:17 GMT (UK)
Looking at the census page, I would suggest that the place would be Caenby (spelt Cainby in the census).

It's about 10 miles up the A15 from Burton, his wife's place of birth.

EDIT: He was at Caenby in 1841 census, aged 8.

In 1851, at Glentham, birthplace given as Normanby (adjacent to Caenby).
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: warpo on Wednesday 07 March 18 17:40 GMT (UK)
Yes I originally thought it said Lincoln, but with the tick alongside the number 3-imbecile or idiot, I wanted to clarify with rootschat.

The Census I read and how was transcribed was "Camby", but is indeed Caenby.

Thank you all so much for your help.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: JenB on Wednesday 07 March 18 17:54 GMT (UK)
but with the tick alongside the number 3-imbecile or idiot,

Not quite sure what you mean by this? Apart from the word which we now know to be Lincoln there are no other entries in the 'Infirmities' column on this page  :-\
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: warpo on Wednesday 07 March 18 18:14 GMT (UK)
In the description of the columns, to the right of number three there is a distinct tick.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: Christine53 on Wednesday 07 March 18 19:52 GMT (UK)
In the description of the columns, to the right of number three there is a distinct tick.

As that box is a heading for the whole column , how would you possibly know to which entry on the page it referred  ? I think it's just a random mark.
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: JenB on Wednesday 07 March 18 19:56 GMT (UK)
In the description of the columns, to the right of number three there is a distinct tick.

As that box is a heading for the whole column , how would you possibly know to which entry on the page it referred  ? I think it's just a random mark.

Agree totally  :)
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: warpo on Wednesday 07 March 18 20:01 GMT (UK)
My bad im sorry. I just assumed that since he was the only one with something in the column on that page then it would've refered to him.

Another case of "Don't Assume".
Title: Re: What was wrong with this person
Post by: JohninSussex on Thursday 08 March 18 00:44 GMT (UK)
The handwriting of the word Lunatic Lincoln seems to match the writing of the page header St. Botolph's which does suggest something written later than the bulk of the page, as suggested to clarify the entry.