Ghostwheel reply #8. As heywood said, you shouldn't take the census returns as accurate representations. That's why I said "judging solely by census returns" in my reply #5.
Information about literacy and language volunteered by my nearest relatives in Mayo differed between 1901 & 1911 censuses.
According to 1901 census, only the elderly widowed head of household and her son spoke Irish & English. 2 daughters don't have anything written in language column. The mother couldn't read. All 3 children were recorded as being able to read and write. The younger daughter was "male" in sex column.
I know all their ages were wrong by around a decade. The mother made a cross against the declaration that it was an accurate return and the police constable counter-signed as witness.
1911 Mother was dead. Son filled in the return. He and elder sister had English & Irish in language column, younger sister was blank. However all 3 are circled in pencil and the words "all reg as Irish & English" was written in pencil below. Literacy column said elder sister could read but not write, a change from information given in 1901 when she could allegedly write. (I know she couldn't write.)
My GF was a younger member of the family. He spoke Irish and English and passed on knowledge of Irish to his children. He was in England for 1901 & 1911 censuses. (His 1911 census return contains several inaccuracies.)
Looking at their elder brother's household in the same parish:
1901 Brother & wife Irish & English. English was written in language column for all their children and then scored through.
1911 Parents + eldest son still at home, Irish & English. That son was down as speaking English only in 1901. Language column blank for other sons and youngest daughter.
