1911 Census and handwriting of ancestors

[Ladkyis]

In some areas it was not a good idea to let anyone know that you could read and write. There were some employers who didn't want their workers to be literate, they felt threatened by it because if a man who was employed to dig ditches could read he might just try to "rise above himself" and if he could read he would know what was happening in the world and might join the unions or the Chartists and there could be revolution if the poorer classes could read and write!
Some people lost their jobs because they let on they could read and write.

[spison]

I only have two direct family members still in England in 1911. My father was thrilled that his grandfather had completed the census as dad recognised his handwriting (and there's a signature) - he was 19 when he did it and wasn't the head of the house (he was working at Lysaghts Ladykis). By comparison the other family was completed by his ggrandmother - the head of the family - also from your neck of the woods Ladykis.

Jane

[Sue Mackay]

There were also those who has learned to write their name and perhaps the basics, but for whom writing was still a great struggle. My husband's great great grandfather had a total of 15 children by three wives, less than half of whom lived beyond the age of five. (Indeed we pulled my mother-in-law's leg once by saying she was descended from William IV - the first three Williams died in infancy ) On all three of his marriage certificates and when registering the birth of his children he proudly signed his name, but all those sad death certificates show that he was too grief stricken to concentrate on writing his name, and made his mark instead.

[Red Kite]

In this case the census has been completed by a daughter and acknowledgement made of it (the head of the household is known to have been illiterate). I just wonder if there are examples of other members of the family completing the census with that fact not being declared.

One of my 2x great grandfathers always signed with an X as far as I know (including 3 marriage certificates!). Yet his 1911 census return is neatly completed and signed by him.

Apparently.

In fact it was his son who completed it and signed his father's name. No doubt about it, as a comparison with the handwriting on his own household schedule makes clear. So, as always, it's dangerous to make assumptions.

[pottoka]

The 1911 return for one related family was signed, presumably by the household head, but was filled in by someone else. Whoever this person was has proved to extremely helpful as he/she also entered names of 6 children no longer living at home, complete with their marital status and how long married, number of children etc where applicable.

I love it when they do that - it's so useful, like putting the number of children in even if they were widowed! I also had one father (it was his writing) fill in all his children who had left home, and very kindly write that one of them was in New Zealand. I think I would have been tearing my hair out looking for him otherwise

[exiled brummie]

Good to hear I am not alone in having "helpful" relatives.

One of the absent children was listed as "soldier 2nd ...." From this information we now know he enlisted with the South Staffordshire Regiment in 1901 and was in South Africa in 1902. He extended his term of service in 1908, and was among the first BEF contingent to sail to France in 1914. He was subsequently involved in the various battles of the Somme, and lived to tell the tale despite being severely wounded in 1917.

He left the army in 1922, and eventually married in 1926, at the tender age of 43. My 2 cousins and me would be totally unaware of all this had he not been mistakenly entered on the 1911 census.

[busyglen]

I had a find when I looked at the 1911 form listing all the children of my grandparents. There should have been four but my grandfather had listed five. The first born was Oliver, who I had never heard a mention of. On the same form where it asks if living or dead, it stated that Oliver was 5 months old when he died. None of the family had heard of him, and there had never been a mention of him. Sadly all died years ago apart from a couple of cousins. As he was born shortly after my grandparents married, it poses all sorts of questions, which will probably never be answered.

Glenys

[pottoka]

That's sad, Busyglen. Maybe you could get his certificates when you're feeling flush, to know why he died so young.

I have quite the opposite case in one of my families. The mother, widowed (no will from the father, it seems to be a trait in my ancestors, curse them!), is the Head of Household and she says that she has had 11 children born alive, of which ten are still living and one has died.

My problem is that I can find all eleven on the 1911 Census, alive and kicking!

[busyglen]

That's sad, Busyglen. Maybe you could get his certificates when you're feeling flush, to know why he died so young.

I have quite the opposite case in one of my families. The mother, widowed (no will from the father, it seems to be a trait in my ancestors, curse them!), is the Head of Household and she says that she has had 11 children born alive, of which ten are still living and one has died.

My problem is that I can find all eleven on the 1911 Census, alive and kicking!

Mmm! I can see that could be a problem, but do you think that she possibly made a mistake and put the wrong number down in the first place? Can you check back from the last Census and then look for the births to confirm this?

Nothing is ever simple is it?

Glenys

[junedye64]

My G Grandmother stated that she had nine children! I was only aware of four.
Apparently five were living and four died. I've found one that died as a child but it is the one that was still living that I would like to find.
They lived in London so it should be easy but they obviously didn't have them all baptised.

June