Literate and Illiterate Ancestors

[chris1824]

Hi

I've come across quite an interesting pattern of literacy in a branch of my ancestors who grew up in the 1850s to 1870s. I'd like to see if other list members have come across something similar.

My Great Great Grandfather and his wife (John and Mary) emigrated from Ireland to England in the late 1840s and 1850s. The 1871 census shows that they had 5 children. The eldest was born in Manchester circa 1852 while the rest were born in Birmingham. They had a subsequent son in 1873 (James my great grandfather). I know that Mary left her mark on a number of birth and death certificates and so was illiterate. At the moment I haven't found any certificates which John had to sign so I don't know if he was literate or not.

The two youngest children were born in 1867 and 1873 and so would have been obliged to be educated under the 1870 Education Act. This is borne out by the fact that James signed his name when he married in 1897.

The oldest 4 (Mary Junior, Catherine, Patrick and Ann) were all born by 1861 and so would have been 'educated' prior to the act. Catherine, Patrick and Ann all left their mark on their marriage certficates and the birth certificates of their children. However Mary, the oldest appears to have been able to sign her own name as she did not leave a mark on her wedding certificate or the birth certificate of her eldest child.

This leaves a situation where the oldest female child of a large family was able to sign her own name, when her parents and younger siblings were unable to do so (not counting those educated after 1870). Mary's occupation is recorded as hawker on the 1871 and 1881 censuses which suggests it wasn't her employment which led her to pick up this skill. The only things which mark her out from her siblings are (a) she was the eldest and (b) she was born in Manchester rather than Birmingham.

Much as I want to believe that Mary Junior was literate I need to 'sense' check it, so my specific questions are:

1) Has anyone else come across this pattern of literacy at this time?

2) How much credence can I put the fact that someone signed their name on their "marriage certificate". For instance is it possible that Mary Junior may have been able to pressure a registrar into forging her 'signature' for her?

Hope the above isn't too involved and thanks in advance for your help

Chris

[Ladkyis]

there is also the case where people would not let on that they could read and write because their employers would sack them - it did happen. They would be able to sign their name and read a little but for fear of upsetting other people they would keep it a secret. My grandmother told me a tale when I was quite small of her grandmother being able to read and write but she would not sign her marriage certificate incase her employers were told that she could do it. She was afraid that - and this is the phrase that has stuck in my mind for 50 years - she was afraid that she would be "put off without a penny" and would have to go to the workhouse.
Ann

[Guy Etchells]

First one must ask what is meant by literate?
Many people even today can sign their name but are unable to read and write.

By the same token many in the past made a mark when told to do so rather than sign their name.
What makes you think a hawker would not be literate, the succesful hawkers had to be both numerate and literate to avoid being taken advantage of.

There is a growing theory that many of the peasants involved in the 14th century peasant's revolt were in fact able to read & write and that is how the revolt was orchestrated.
Never underestimate your ancestors, not long ago historians believed that stone-age man to be uncivilised but now we know that far from being uncivilised they had reached a reasonably high standard.

Do not make hasty decisions leave the matter open and seek evidence to show the true situation.
Cheers
Guy

[Cornish Maid]

Another point to remember, especially in the North of England, many children received a rudimentary education at Sunday School or at schools set up for Mill-workers by enlightened employers.

I have evidence in a tree I am researching in Lancashire of a Weavers School set up about 1735. This was mainly to teach people (not just children) to read so that they could study the Scriptures for themselves. The same family, 100 years later, produced a weaver who was also a schoolmaster in the Mill School his employer had set up.

I agree that probably more people could sign their names than actually did. And I agree that a female hawker would have needed some literacy to operate successfully and, being a "free agent" would have not needed to hide her literacy from anyone.

[AnnB]

It was also the case that many people of all classes (including the 'landed gentry') could write their name and nothing else. The reason being, I suppose, that that was the most likely thing you would need to be able to write, so, if you if you could sign your name to anything, you would appear to be able to write.

Best wishes
Ann