Genealogy Chat

Hi, I've an ancestor who signed his own name on his marriage certificate, his wife signed with a X,

I thought most of the population were illiterate in this period. Does this mean his family were well off enough to pay for education? I have no idea what occupation his father had.

Thanks Lou

Could be a range of reasons - I've seen a female relative of mine who put a cross but her husband signed, and other times I have seen the bride putting a signature and her husband making a cross. Perhaps it depended on the occupation a man had - a labourer might not need to write as part of his job, but, say, a shoemaker (as one of my literate ancestors was) or a clerk might need to learn to write to be able to keep their accounts in order or issue receipts.

I think sometimes girls would be brought up at home rather than sent to school so perhaps in these cases - if those girls learnt to write - it was because their mother or whoever was able to write and passed the skill on at home. I've got an interesting case where my great-great grandma (born in 1843) was able to write but her parents (born in 1812 and 1819) put crosses on their marriage certificate - so I think the daughter must have been able to attend school. She was listed as a scholar in 1851.

All my ag labs could sign their names. It really depended on how the local landowner treated them - and most landowners would want their "people" to have basic reading, writing and maths because it would help with their work.

In fact, thinking about it - my GGFx2 was involved in a murder trial in 1841 and he was born in a small Norfolk village. The trial case speaks of him taking in a notebook of his notes for the trial. He was only an ag lab who then went to London and became a docker.

I also think that sometimes they put an x because the person in authority, would say - "make your mark" and they would just follow instructions.

Hi Looby Loo
I also have male relatives where they could sign their own marriage certificates ( 1830's)but the brides have just entered their mark. I think there was some basic education even for the inmates/children of the workhouse. -JLe

Hi Kate,

thanks for the info. My ancestor was an Engineer / Engine fitter. I didn't think he'd need to write. But your info is interesting. I suppose this must mean he attended school, if so that must mean his parents could afford to send him doesn't it?

Regards, Lou

Hi Janet, Thanks, Maybe I'm trying hard to find something that just isn't there.

Thanks Lou

I would have thought an engineer would most definitely need to read and write and would have had to serve an apprenticeship.

Hi Heather, sorry I missed your reply.

I am amazed that Ag labs could sign their name. It looks as if I definatley have been barking up the wrong tree. They were obviously more people literate that I had thought.

Thanks again, Lou

Hi Heather, Oh boy am I dum!!!

Apprentiship I never thought of that. Shall start looking now, thanks Heather.
In my defence I've not been too well lately and I do think the medication is having an effect on the old brain matter. I keep getting things muddled up and have to retype things twice as the letters get mixed up and in wrong order.

Thanks again to you all. I'ts much appreciated.

Lou

one of my ag lab rellies was transported to Australia in 1830 for writing a threatening letter to his employer - writing was his downfall!!!!

Quite a mixed bag in my family. G-g-g'father, a joiner, signed his name but g-g-g'mother, no profession stated, made her mark (1839). Another g-g-g'father was a silk weaver and signed his name, but again his wife, no profession stated, made her mark (1843). But when silk weaver's son, also a silk weaver, married joiner's daughter (1872) they both signed their names. Her profession is not stated, at least I'm not sure if the mark in the column is meant to be a "ditto" or to indicate a blank.
There's a similar mixture of signatures and crosses elsewhere in the family during the 19th century.

Sometimes they put a cross on the marriage cert because they were not used to writing with a pen and did not want to mess up the documents. So nervousness won over.

Some people knew how to write their name and not a lot else.

As Allan said about his family - it's a real mixed bag.

I came across a member of a cousin's family (I'm doing his tree to how obsessive is that?) who was a blacksmith back in the early 1800s in a village in Kent. I assumed that a blacksmith would be numerate as he would need to charge for his work. Anyhow, there was a note in the parish records at the time of the 1831 census explaining who had carried out the census. There was my blacksmith - so he'd been involved in that plus it mentioned that he was an overseer of the parish. I expect for that role he would have needed to be literate as well.

And ag labs get such a bad press! I don't have one in my family (yet) but when you consider the type of work they were involved in - a complete mixture ... they were multi-skilled people.

Jill

The fact that someone signed their name didn't mean they could write as well. I remember people in the 1970's who could sign their name but were otherwise illiterate.

And then there was the situation where the wife could sign but her hubby couldn't and so she signed with an X so as not to look superior.

I would also say that I have come across the occupation 'engineer' referring to someone who in reality just wielded a spanner and screwdriver at the local woolen mill, and was illiterate to boot.

So, don't try to read too much into these things.

Hi Girls,
My wife's Lithuanian ancestors couldn't read or write either when they arrived in Scotland.
Do put me out of my misery however .....................what are ag labs ?

DOHH !

Thanks Joan.

I'd agree with Mrs Grumpy that ag labs were versatile people. Here's one from my family as described at different times:

1841 Census Agricultural Labourer
1851 Census Gentleman’s Groom and Coachman
1861 Census Grocer
1864 Daughter's marriage certificate Labourer
1871 Census Gentleman’s Servant

Quite a varied career!

a man for all seasons then!!!

http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Browse?path=Browse/Registrar%20General%20(by%20date)/1881-1890&active=yes&treestate=contract&titlepos=0
[ Second annual report of the registrar-general Page 13-14 ]

In the 2nd year of registration (1838-1839), of every half dozen marrs in ENG-WAL, 2 men & 3 women signed by mark [33.5%, 48.7%].
By 1855, this had fallen to 29.5% and 41.2%.
In 1855, in SCT, the corresponding figures were 11.4% and 22.8%.
In the metropolis (which includes parts of SRY, MDX + Gravesend), the rates were 11.6%, 22.9% in 1838/9, and 12.7%, 21.2% in 1855, roughly comparable with SCT.

In 1855, there is considerable variation from county to county. What's somewhat surprising, given the country-wide rates, is that in 10 (plus 1 tied) of the 45 county sized areas, women sign more frequently than men do.


I'ld reiterate most of what Brinsley says. I'ld also add that attitudes across the UK seem to have varied quite a bit. In Scotland, where people had a christian duty to be able to read their bibles, there is mostly a fairly strong tradition of schooling, often supported by local charitable endowments.

Hi

Ag Lab is the shortened version of agricultural labourer

I know for a fact that my Nan could not read or write. She was born in 1902, the second child born out of twelve children, her only sister was five years younger. She never went to school after 10 years of age and had low attendance before then. Her job was to help my g grandchildren with her younger siblings.

She did sign her marriage cert. and various other documents but her signature was very like my granddads. She practiced for hours copying his handwriting to save her the embaressment (??) of putting her mark.

Thanks Rose,
I should have figured it out.
Joan actually beat you to it but it was rubbed out.

Hey Karen,
See these Lithuanians !