The Mark of .....

[Carrie Meerten]

Does anyone know whether and inscription of "The Mark of (+name)" on birth, death and marriage certificates means that the person was illiterate ????

|cheers|

[busyglen]

The `mark of' usually represented by a cross, was used a lot in olden times as many people were unable to read or write. Occasionally someone was taught to write their name, but weren't able to read or write anything else. My gt. grandmother signed her marriage certificate with a cross.

Glenys.

[Guy Etchells]

Although many assume that a person making a mark was illiterate that is not necessarily so at it is dangerous to assume so.
In the authoritarian world where people did as they were told if someone was told to put their mark to a document unless they had confidence in their station they would put their mark rather than sign.
There are many examples where people have signed one document but placed a mark on another.
Never fall into the trap of thinking our ancestors did not have the benefit of education this was available in various forms from the middle ages and many took advantage.
Cheers
Guy

[ChristineR]

I have an unusual entry on a death certificate, Victoria, Australia 1873.
My Thomas CADDY registered the death of his infant daughter, and signed his name. The registrar has gone one step further and qualified it with the notation - "could write his name only"

It was suggested in another thread that sometimes the person played down their literacy levels, especially women in service. I have taken Guy's advice, and happily dropped the assumptions that I had made, as (with another line) I was suprised by having an apparent illiterate son when both his parents consistently signed their names. It just didn't make sense, and added to the thought I might have had the wrong person. So, when told 'put your mark here sir', you do so. Makes perfect sense.

Christine Randall
Vic Australia

[Rod Neep]

Another interesting but related fact is that even well into the mid 1800s reading and writing were considered to be two totally separate skills. Children were taught to read (the bible) and were tested on that, but not necessarily to write anything other than their name.

Rod

[ChristineR]

Another interesting but related fact is that even well into the mid 1800s reading and writing were considered to be two totally separate skills. Children were taught to read (the bible) and were tested on that, but not necessarily to write anything other than their name.

Rod

I recall this topic in our old Sutherland list awhile back - further to Rod's comment, it was more costly in the schools to teach kids to write, so often it might only be the boys that progressed further than their signature.

Christine

[David Sherriff]

As all my Scottish Ancestors could sign their names on BMD certificates, I was very surprised to recently find that my English Ancestors frequently could not. I would describe them as being of similar social class, eg skilled agricultural or manual workers, and therefore surmise that other factors are at work to explain the difference.
These factors could be,[a] An existing tradition of education within the family, [b] The availability of a School within a walking distance of say three of four miles, [c] The ability of the Family to pay the Fees.

[David Sherriff]

Following the family of my GGrandfather born in Selston, Notts, in 1856, his mother made her mark with an X. Not surprising since Selston did not have a school at that time. However, the family had moved just over the border to Codnor in Derbyshire by 1861c, and GGrandfather is a Scholar at the village school. By the 1871c the family had moved to Hasland in Derbyshire, where there was a School, and his two younger brothers who were of School age, were NOT listed as Scholars. I can only assume that with another four boys to bring up, the family could no longer afford to pay the School fees.

[Guy Etchells]

As all my Scottish Ancestors could sign their names on BMD certificates, I was very surprised to recently find that my English Ancestors frequently could not. I would describe them as being of similar social class, eg skilled agricultural or manual workers, and therefore surmise that other factors are at work to explain the difference.
These factors could be,[a] An existing tradition of education within the family, [b] The availability of a School within a walking distance of say three of four miles, [c] The ability of the Family to pay the Fees.

Possibly but remember Scotland has always led England with regards to eduction.

Another factor is the Scots were always more forward than their English counterparts and would not be intimidated into making a mark if they could scrawl something.
Cheers
Guy