RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: zetlander on Saturday 21 April 18 22:48 BST (UK)
-
Why do disabled people not appear in people's family trees.
Are disabled people deliberately excluded from some people's family history?
I have never seen a thread on this site which has a reference to a disabled person.
Moderator Comment:Search for yourself, there are lots on RootsChat: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=disability+site%3Awww.rootschat.com
-
Off the top of my head I know of two disabled people in my tree and I know one of them I have asked a question about on rootschat.
However it is not so clear if someones ancestors are disabled or not unless it states 'blind' on the census or unless you come across an accident report or record, or they are placed in an asylum
-
I quite agree with iluleah, I've come upon a few blind, some disabled in mine accidents, and a "feeble minded" in my researches - and in they go, with a relevant comment.
I'm also sure I've seen several references / queries on rootschat about similar cases, too.
-
As we usually can't tell whether ancestors were disabled, they do appear in our trees!
-
Why do disabled people not appear in people's family trees.
Are disabled people deliberately excluded from some people's family history?
I have never seen a thread on this site which has a reference to a disabled person.
Maybe your family tree, but not mine. I have a suicide, a rapist, a child abductor, two labelled as imbeciles (or feeble minded), two deaf, one half blind, umpteen who died of cancer and the list goes on. I might not trumpet their condition from the roof tops, but I don't remove them from my tree either.
regards
Chas
-
As far as I am aware, the only census that includes disability is in 1911. In my OH's line there is a relative who was listed as blind and this in noted in his family tree. Unless there is oral history of disability in the family or any paperwork then how can we know? Absence of proof doesn't mean absence of disability.
I can't see why anyone would knowingly leave out such an important piece of information.
Carol
-
Why do disabled people not appear in people's family trees
Are you referring to trees you have a personal knowledge of and know that some of the people were disabled?
If not - are you just basing your question on the fact that you haven't seen anything on this site? I myself have seen posts with references to census entries like those mentioned above by iluleah
Census records are hardly comprehensive when it comes to disabilities so unless the tree owner had personal knowledge of a disability it's unlikely it would be included.
-
How would it be recorded?
A birth certificate just gives date , place,father`s surname and (this was not given in early Birth certs)the mother`s maiden name.
Nowhere to declare if a baby was in any way born with an obvious physical handicap.
It would be recorded in hospital records no doubt if a baby say was born anencephalic,ie without all or part of the brain.
Marriage certificates also have no section to record such things but death certs ask for cause of death and if the deceased died from anything to do with a condition which would have symptoms which could lead to ill health or eventually death it would be recorded .
I am not sure how otherwise such conditions would be recorded for posterity.
Census returns may include such information ,perhaps for example when someone was unemployed due to a severe physical or mental condition as the reason for being unemployed it would probably be mentioned whereas just not having a job would be just recorded simply as unemployed.
Census returns taken in institutions would record inmates and perhaps the reason for their being there(-I don`t like the word inmates,perhaps patients or residents).
I am sure some RootsChatter can give more specific information, it is an interesting query.
Viktoria.
-
Sorry folks, whilst I was typing my reply you were quicker off the mark.
Viktoria.
-
As has been said already, only the census records would mention any disability, and perhaps more recent death certificates. I have not seen any myself, but perhaps there might be the odd reference in parish registers.
Perhaps some of our ancestors that did not marry were in fact "disabled" in some way. We will never know for certain.
-
As far as I am aware, the only census that includes disability is in 1911. In my OH's line there is a relative who was listed as blind and this in noted in his family tree. Unless there is oral history of disability in the family or any paperwork then how can we know? Absence of proof doesn't mean absence of disability.
I can't see why anyone would knowingly leave out such an important piece of information.
Carol
Take a look at the heading of the last column in every census except the 1841.
-
Mostly, one doesn't know but I have a few who were institutionalized, one deaf and several crippled, including my gg-grandfather who was severely injured in a farming accident and got around on crutches for the last ~25 years of his life. I certainly don't leave him out of my tree.
-
Love your avatar Erato....what a beautiful young lady.
Carol
-
This was my great great great aunt and the 1881 census was the only way I knew she was disabled
Name: Harriet Clements
Event Type: Census
Event Date: 1881
Event Place: Exton, Rutland, England
Registration District: Oakham
Gender: Female
Age: 49
Marital Status (Original): Single
Occupation: (Invalid 33 Years)
Relationship to Head of Household: Daughter
Birth Year (Estimated): 1832
Birthplace: Exton, Rutlandshire, England
Page Number: 8
Registration Number: RG11
Piece/Folio: 3186/104
-
The other my great grandmothers sister who I asked about on rootchat when she disappeared from records and eventually was found in St Andrews Hospital in 1911 https://www.davidbakerphotography.com/projects/care-institutions/the-history-of-st-andrews-asylum-norfolk-lunatic-asylum-annexe-uk she died in 1931 and I received lots of help from many on here including several stories from 1900 from the Ipswich Journal "suicide attempt at Great Yarmouth pier "
So forgotten or airbrushed out? Goodness no, she is in my tree
ADD: Just found my question http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=682301.0
-
What an odd thread.
I have an ancestor who was an imbecile, but judging from the fact he was in his 90s at the time I think he can be forgiven for that! I have an ancestor's daughter who died in an asylum from epilepsy. One of my grandmother's sisters was apparently in calipers for some kind of leg weakness/deformity. As everyone else says, most of the disabled people in our trees are going to have their disabilities hidden by simple lack of information telling us they were disabled. The people themselves are going to appear. How many babies weren't born alive because of disability? How many children who died young had issues that might be covered over by a vague death diagnosis, like "debility"? How many unmarried adult children of our ancestors had physical or mental health conditions that caused them to live at home their entire lives? Who knows.
-
I have one, a coal miner, who was listed in one census as blind for 16 years.
Another one had the palsy shakes, in the census, as a young man. I have not followed him too far, as he is off on a minor branch.
-
I certainly don't "airbrush" disabled people out of my tree! What a horrible thought!
As has been said before, many records available to family historians simply don't record disabilities. I know about great great uncle Frank's gammy arm because it was caused by a war wound, and his service record gives details of his pension. But great great grannie didn't tell the census enumerator that her youngest daughter had learning difficulties (perhaps she thought it was none of his business) - there's just circumstantial evidence to support the family story. And there's no record that great great Auntie Jessie had a club foot. Or that my mother was blinded in one eye after contracting measles.
We can only record what we know.
Cati
-
As has been said, disabilities are not often declared anywhere.
I have a 14 year old who died of chronic hydrocephalus, but it was never stated on a census that he was in any way disabled. I only knew from his death certificate that he was admitted to an asylum at 13, and those records list a multitude of problems from infancy including being blind, partially deaf, non-verbal, deformed leg, deformed arm, and 'an idiot'. Despite this he was 'not under any care or treatment'.
Another I only discovered via a newspaper article. He was trying to shoot rats in a privvy but struggled to stand up because he was lame and accidentally shot himself in the head. This was in 1854, and it was "necessary to cut a portion of the skull away which lodged upon the brain, and to remove some splintered pieces". Remarkably he lived a further 26 years, although he also died in an asylum.
I haven't obtained his asylum records so don't yet know the cause of his lameness, nor the extent of the subsequent damage to his brain, but it all sounds pretty horrific.
I certainly haven't 'airbrushed' either of them, although the struggles they faced do haunt me a little at times.
-
I'm just guessing, but I expect that our disabled ancestors [at least the ones in small villages] were not airbrushed out of life in their communities. I base that on years spent in a small third world village [pop. 550] whose population included people with just about every kind of mental and physical disability - blind, deaf, crippled, insane, etc. They were not totally marginalized; they fit in as best they could and their limitations were simply acknowledged and accepted. To the extent possible, a place was made for them in village life. I only ever knew of one individual who was hidden away and shunned - a young boy with a hideous skin disease that was thought to be caused by witchcraft. [Eventually, we were able to arrange for him to be treated in the territorial capital and to convince the family to do so. He went out with his father and came back two or three months later 100% cured].
-
As far as I am aware, the only census that includes disability is in 1911.
The 1851 & 1861 censuses had a column for Blind, Deaf or Dumb. 1871 to 1901 Imbecile or Idiot & Lunatic were added. This was the same as in 1911 except it was expanded.
-
You can sometimes see them in a Will, although not stated as such. But when one adult child is left an annuity, with someone named as guardian, it's fairly obvious why that might be the case, although the specific cause will not be mentioned.
-
I also think that a lot of the disabilities that we recognise these days were unknown about many years ago. For example, autism, ADHD, dyslexia to name but a few. I think people with these disabilities would have suffered a very hard time as they would have likely just been expected to fit in with little or no support. :-\
-
Why do disabled people not appear in people's family trees.
Are disabled people deliberately excluded from some people's family history?
I have never seen a thread on this site which has a reference to a disabled person.
What makes you think this is happening? How would you know? Are you claiming to have read every thread on every board in RootsChat ???
Try this one for a start; there are many others on similar lines: www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=514360.msg3703390 (my reply #10)
Carol
-
I have found one adult and 2 children. The man was a deaf lock maker who married and had a family. The children - one labelled an imbecile since birth, when his mother died he was sent to an asylum, another down as crippled since birth on 2 censuses, she died in her late teens not long after the census.
-
I have a sister of my 3xgreat grandfather who is recorded as Deaf and Dumb on Census. She is on my tree.
There may be other disabled ancestors in my family - however I've not found evidence.
I do know my great-grandmother who died in 1950s was crippled with rheumatoid arthritis and what would be diagnosed today as osteoporosis. This caused her to have very poor mobility for several years. However I only know this via word of mouth from my mother, I can find no documented evidence to support it. Not even photographs. Her death certificate records a cerebral stroke as cause of death.
Looby :)
-
In our family trees we note the occupation relationships of our forebears - we note where they lived where they moved to and describe the lives they lead.
But the lives disabled people lived or the relationships they had with other family members are rarely chronicled. The censuses label them e.g. as 'idiot, or 'imbecile' etc. and that is the end of their story.
Many lived long lives - sometimes in institutions - what was their daily life - where did they 'fit in?'
Too many are simply labelled and forgotten about - is that because they're not as interesting as the able-bodied relatives?
-
Well here's an example of one thread about deaf people in the C19th:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=709214.0
which contains the post (page 4) where I found that John Skelsey received only an annuity in his parents' will, though a generous one, as PrawnCocktail mentioned - he was the only childless one, though.
I expect as others have said is the lack of information that causes this topic not to be discussed more often.
-
In our family trees we note the occupation relationships of our forebears - we note where they lived where they moved to and describe the lives they lead.
But the lives disabled people lived or the relationships they had with other family members are rarely chronicled. The censuses label them e.g. as 'idiot, or 'imbecile' etc. and that is the end of their story.
Many lived long lives - sometimes in institutions - what was their daily life - where did they 'fit in?'
Too many are simply labelled and forgotten about - is that because they're not as interesting as the able-bodied relatives?
Haven't you answered your own question here? It's not a matter of them being "not as interesting" - the details of their daily lives - whether in an institution or not - are simply not recorded.
-
I would say that some disabled people we know more about that able bodied, for example many children are listed on the censuses as "student", girls who were probably working both inside and outside the house, listed as "at home" (this tells us nothing). At least with some disabled people we may be told a little more about their physical limitations eg "blind since birth", and where people were admitted to asylums there can be huge amounts of information found in their records if available.
There is not much to be found out about the daily lives of many of our ancestors, able bodied or not. It has nothing to do with being "interesting". BMDs and censuses do not record people due to how interesting they are or were ....
It is likely that there were many more disabled people in communities in the past than we encounter today - and most of them and their families would just get on with life as best they could.
-
some things were not considered disabilities in the past ..just differences
A man who died locally couple of centuries ago was described as being a hunchback
it didnt prevent him from being a soldier
we now know he had scoliosis (spelling)
yes Im talking about King Richard 3rd
-
In our family trees we note the occupation relationships of our forebears - we note where they lived where they moved to and describe the lives they lead.
But the lives disabled people lived or the relationships they had with other family members are rarely chronicled. The censuses label them e.g. as 'idiot, or 'imbecile' etc. and that is the end of their story.
Many lived long lives - sometimes in institutions - what was their daily life - where did they 'fit in?'
Too many are simply labelled and forgotten about - is that because they're not as interesting as the able-bodied relatives?
You might be concerned about particular individuals in your family history but that is your family and your tree.
If you look on this site mane people would like to find out about their family members who have been committed to an institution - sometimes the records are available sometimes not. The labels attached to folk really do bother people. It is upsetting.
What makes you think that they didn’t ‘fit in’ or are not as interesting as able bodied people?
Where is your evidence for your assertions?
If any disability is within living memory, then the family would be aware of this. If it is not and not recorded in the appropriate column then that would not be noted. ::)
-
Research into my families found only 1 person (James) officially recorded as having a disability. He was described as "idiot" on 1 census. It's not mentioned on any other census, before or after. He had no occupation on the census when he was classed as "idiot". He had occupations on 2 of the others, farm labourer like his father and in a cotton mill like his sisters. Fortunately his mother had a long life so he was able to live at home for much of his. He was the only son among many daughters. He didn't marry. When he died it meant there were no more bearers of that surname in my family. Before I knew about his disability I wondered why he hadn't married. His eldest sister, my 3xGGM named her 1st son James.
-
But the lives disabled people lived or the relationships they had with other family members are rarely chronicled. The censuses label them e.g. as 'idiot, or 'imbecile' etc. and that is the end of their story.
Many lived long lives - sometimes in institutions - what was their daily life - where did they 'fit in?'
Believe me, I've tried. Of the hydrocephalus example I mentioned earlier, the most I've been able to find out is from the asylum records, which note that 'he sits up in a chair during the day'. There is no mention of whether anyone visited or any other activity he might have engaged in. Before his admission I have no idea what his daily life was like, but he obviously lived at home and was presumably looked after by his mother & siblings, as it was noted that he had not received any care or treatment before his admission.
If we can't find it, we can't chronicle it.
-
In our family trees we note the occupation relationships of our forebears - we note where they lived where they moved to and describe the lives they lead.
But the lives disabled people lived or the relationships they had with other family members are rarely chronicled. The censuses label them e.g. as 'idiot, or 'imbecile' etc. and that is the end of their story.
Many lived long lives - sometimes in institutions - what was their daily life - where did they 'fit in?'
Too many are simply labelled and forgotten about - is that because they're not as interesting as the able-bodied relatives?
That's a very sweeping statement, presumably based on how you record things on your tree. How do you know what other people do? As has been stated previously, information is sometimes hard to come by, but not all disabled people lived in institutions, many lived at home and as such are recorded as living with parents and then perhaps with siblings after the parents' deaths. I'm sure that majority of people do not ignore any member of their family, but record their lives to the best of their ability.
-
I want to get hold of the asylum records for my 2xgt's daughter with the epilepsy but she comes under the 100 year rule.
-
I want to get hold of the asylum records for my 2xgt's daughter with the epilepsy but she comes under the 100 year rule.
Sometimes records can be made available to family members. I managed to get some 1930s asylum admission & discharge records from LMA, sketchy and there was a fee but they made sense of the death cert.
Jane :-)
-
I want to get hold of the asylum records for my 2xgt's daughter with the epilepsy but she comes under the 100 year rule.
Sometimes records can be made available to family members. I managed to get some 1930s asylum admission & discharge records from LMA, sketchy and there was a fee but they made sense of the death cert.
Jane :-)
I got records from asylum for my grandfather's aunt who died in 1950s which included details about her son (injured in WWI), addresses for two other sons, etc.
-
I think I read that you have to be able to prove your relationship. In my case I'm missing a link in the chain because mum refuses to let me have a copy of her birth certificate. I don't think I have their marriage either.
-
I didn't have to prove anything. Rang up to ask about available records and was told I had to put my request in writing. Wrote a letter explaining that I was looking for information on grandfather's aunt for medical reasons. A few weeks later a doctor from the hospital rang, read out the notes and explained what much of it meant in modern terms and the context of the period.
-
I think I read that you have to be able to prove your relationship. In my case I'm missing a link in the chain because mum refuses to let me have a copy of her birth certificate. I don't think I have their marriage either.
Can't you get that from the GRO?
-
The marriage yes, but mum was not born in this country.
I might look into it again at some point. It's certainly something on the To Do list.
-
I think the Victorian era saw more "disabilities" hidden away/institutionalized. Perhaps that is what the OP is getting at.
-
I think perhaps Zetlander need to come back and explain what he/she meant by the original post. As many have said already, I see no evidence that family historians are airbrushing people out of their family trees, but perhaps that isn't what was meant.
-
i wasnt asked for proof either for my grandmothers birth fathers records 1924
from merthry tidvil GRO
-
In our family trees we note the occupation relationships of our forebears - we note where they lived where they moved to and describe the lives they lead.
But the lives disabled people lived or the relationships they had with other family members are rarely chronicled. The censuses label them e.g. as 'idiot, or 'imbecile' etc. and that is the end of their story.
Many lived long lives - sometimes in institutions - what was their daily life - where did they 'fit in?'
Too many are simply labelled and forgotten about - is that because they're not as interesting as the able-bodied relatives?
Interesting to whom?
Your questions are valid but to whom are they directed? Are you addressing societal attitudes of the past or the personal interest levels of today's genealogy buffs?
Surely you are not suggesting that Rootschatters are not interested in ancestors or relatives who had disabilities?
Even if you have spent very little time perusing the threads here, you cannot have missed the fact that most of us are practically obsessed over the tiniest detail we can scrounge on our ancestors and their relatives.
I think it's safe to say that, when genealogy keeners like us come across information about illness or disability, it expands not only our knowledge of those individuals but also our empathy and understanding of what life might have been like for them and their family members.
One of my ancestors was "quite deaf" but I only learned of it when I purchased copies of court documents related to charges that were made against him. First, we knew nothing of the criminal charges or the time he spent in prison and, second, we had no knowledge of his deafness. I was astounded and fascinated. What was the first thing I did? I researched the prisons where I knew he stayed. The second? I researched education for the deaf in his country and lifetime.
As others have noted, it is hard to find those details. We could blame it on attitudes that people held about disabilities and differences in years past or we could blame the fact that the record sources that are available to us now simply weren't intended for that purpose.
This is true even for today, I think. Using myself as an example, I had a couple of birth defects and also have more than one chronic health condition, but none of those will cause or contribute to my death. Unless I record it somewhere, and that information is preserved by family, how will the descendants of my niece and nephew ever learn of it? And if they don't, will it be because they just don't care, or because they have no way of knowing?
Regards,
Josephine
-
My family tree includes my parents and my father's brothers. One brother had a wooden leg but it did not stop him from having a full life. He was the only brother who owned and drove a motor car inspite of his wooden leg. He was certainly on the 1911 census but he had 2 legs then.
Should I mention his wooden leg on my family tree as I forgot he had one. Is this important?
Andy_T
-
I think this thread ran its natural course a year ago, especially as the original poster never came back to explain what was in his/her mind.
-
I would say yes. I like knowing details about people . I think it gives a fuller picture and helps us imagine what life might have been like for them.
For instance, in your case your ancestor sounds quite admirable in that he was someone who could overcome the challenges of living a full life with a wooden leg.
-
My family tree includes my parents and my father's brothers. One brother had a wooden leg but it did not stop him from having a full life. He was the only brother who owned and drove a motor car inspite of his wooden leg. He was certainly on the 1911 census but he had 2 legs then.
Should I mention his wooden leg on my family tree as I forgot he had one. Is this important?
Andy_T
I would certainly record it, Andy. We record change of residence, or job, or promotion, or the hundreds of other minor occurrences in a person's life - why not the loss of a limb? I have recorded when I first needed glasses.
Regards
Chas
-
I agree. I note where an ancestor or relative has lost a limb, or similar. My own cousin lost an eye as a boy from a slingshot, and had a glass eye. I've noted it , as well as the fact he still did National Service, and also called the bingo at the local football club. These things add a bit of colour to an otherwise dry narrative in my opinion.
It could explain why we can't find marriages for older ancestors; perhaps they had some kind of disability or handicap.
-
My family tree includes my parents and my father's brothers. One brother had a wooden leg but it did not stop him from having a full life. He was the only brother who owned and drove a motor car inspite of his wooden leg. He was certainly on the 1911 census but he had 2 legs then.
Should I mention his wooden leg on my family tree as I forgot he had one. Is this important?
Andy_T
I can associate myself with that. Back in 1999 I received a government form to fill in that asked how many people with disabilities we employed. I felt really guilty because we didn't have any on our books. As I filled in each section I realised I'd forgotten Tonly only had one thumb and one finger on one hand (others cut off when he was a teenager in a mill accident) and I'd also forgotten that our storeman who climbed up and down step ladders had a hinged artificial leg. I'd also forgotten that we'd removed a door and door jambs so that the part time middle aged accounts chap could get through the doorway with his wheelchair. All of them drove cars too.
-
I have an ancestor, who on one Census is entered as being dumb. I have three censuses on this ancestor and this is entered on the middle one of the three only. Which has seemed to be a bit of an oddity to me being on just the one?? I have it marked down in my jobs to do column for sometime now. I hopefully someday will get around to. Regards JUST J
-
One of my prized possessions is a photo of my great-great grand uncle who had some form of learning disability. I honestly didn't expect to find a photo of him so was very glad to receive one. I had the privilege of speaking to a man who knew him and made sure to preserve all the stories he had about him so that he wouldn't be forgotten.
-
I would advise caution if they find that one of their ancestors was detained in an institution.
At one time the Irish would take children away from their fathers when their mother died as it was thought a man couldn't look after children.
It's not unknown in earlier centuries for a husband to have a rich wife put away
One of my mother's cousins will be recorded on census as being in the local mental asylum. She was put there by her husband after the birth of a child. We now know this might have been caused by hormone imbalance. Her family thought she had what was known at the time as "the baby blues" and asked her husband to sign her out - they tried to get her released but couldn't. He refused because he had a girfriend who he eventually married. As he was the only one legally entitled to sign the documentation she stayed interred until she died.
-
In 1843 my ancestor had a child who was born blind and deaf. He died in 1863 in the smallpox hospital in Islington. The death certificate said he had spinal damage from birth. He grew up in a Clerkenwell tenement. I would add an person to my tree whether able bodied or disabled.
-
I think it is a sad indictment of society in recent years, caused by political correctness. Anything that we have any sort of problem with these days, we seem to give it a new more politically correct name. I won't list any here, to avoid causing any offence (that's ironic...), but compare the words that we used in bygone days with the euphemisms that we use now.
If we reran the 1911 census, it wouldn't have a column for disabilities, it would probably say "different abilities" .
Martin