Sorry about that, clicked the wrong button. I was going to say:- Out in the country areas even in 1891 young boys were classified as general, farm or agricultural labourers. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Fry" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 8:15 PM Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 > Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or glossed > over to a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted > literacy at various times through the ages. > > Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old 3Rs > that I fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before > sociologists were invented and started mucking around with society! > [Personal Opinion] > > Before schooling became mandatory, people relied on ad hoc learning, > probably by wrote, from well meaning ministers. This is when people learnt > to write their names by copying someone else. The fact that a person could > write their name doesn't, to my mind, mean that they were literate. > > Schooling then became mandatory up until the age of 12 (I think) and it is > from then that we start defining literacy in more rigorous terms. But > again, can you really say that kids were literate as we understand it > today? > > On 25 Jul 2014 19:00, Nivard Ovington via wrote: > >> My great grandmother could clearly write in rural Buckinghamshire in >> 1870 when she produced a sampler at age ten > > Not to decry her achievements, but this could have been copied from > something else. > > -- > Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg > >

I always thought the sampler was done by the daughters' of the upper classes to prove their skill as needle women in readiness for marriage. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bonnie Ostler" <[email protected]> To: "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 > The whole idea of samplers done by girls was to complete them under the > tutelage of their mother or some other adult female. It was a learning > exercise. If she was capable of doing it without instruction there would > not have been much reason for having her do it. > > Bonnie > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Nivard Ovington via > <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Mike >> >> No I don't there is any misunderstanding in the context & period we are >> talking about it >> >> In the period, literate would mean having the ability to read and write >> to some very basic level, enough to read basic words and write a small >> amount >> >> I am not suggesting they would be proficient enough to write a thesis or >> dissertation but just the bare basics >> >> The schedules left with the household were not particularly difficult to >> understand but many people (and enumerators) misunderstood them and >> entered the wrong things in the wrong places or in some cases entered >> people that were not there on the night or omitted others >> >> But they still do that today >> >> I shall not repeat what I have said on the subject of signing the >> register as I have already said it in previous posts >> >> As to my great grandmother, no I credit her with more intelligence, she >> completed a full sampler with alphabet included when aged ten, I suspect >> that not many ten year olds today could do the same, and back then a >> fair portion would have been by candle light to boot >> >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >> >> >> >> On 25/07/2014 20:15, Mike Fry via wrote: >> > Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or >> > glossed >> over to >> > a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted literacy >> at >> > various times through the ages. >> > >> > Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old >> > 3Rs >> that I >> > fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before >> sociologists were >> > invented and started mucking around with society! [Personal Opinion] >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >

Oh dear a debate on illiteracy containng the wrong rote :-) More seriously, my Great Granddad born 1859 so was in the 1861 census. A member of a master talor's family and skilled tailor himself he taught all his children to read. Thus my Nan (b1886) taught my Mum who taught my brother and me. The same as Nivard, by the time I started school (1934) I could read simple books and write block letters. Although I had to change from Mum's pencil and paper to small blackboard (with painted lines) and chalk But this was in London and the children of skilled men. Much of the area and people we are talking of are rural agricultural labourers with children working. Even the 1877 Act with one teacher simultanously teaching four classes had six weeks summer holday to help with the harvest written in. In prosperous Cambridge in 1891 in what seems a middle class area are 'general servants' in different households aged 11 and 12. Out in the country areas even in 1891 the ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:06 PM Subject: NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 191 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Rosemary Jones) > 2. Re: NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 190 (Glynn Burrows) > 3. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Bonnie Ostler) > 4. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) > 5. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Bonnie Ostler) > 6. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) > 7. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Mike Fry) > 8. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To contact the NORFOLK list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the NORFOLK mailing list, send an email to > [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. >

Not for me. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:53 AM, John Scott via <[email protected]> wrote: > Why is the message board always duplicated now? Its really annoying and > must be more expensive on server space. > > > Jonah > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Bonnie Samplers were a demonstration of skills learned An exam piece if you will, to show that a child or someone, usually a young lady had learned various needlework techniques Not only to her parents or teachers but to any prospective husband Clearly they were also a learning process in themselves Mike was just suggesting my great great grandmother merely copied another piece, which I doubt given the personal nature of samplers, as hers is the only one to have survived, and that by pure fluke, I can't compare it to any others A couple of lines from her sampler gives a flavour of the times perhaps, particularly the second line Favour is deceitful and beauty is vain but a woman who feareth the Lord she shall be praised Prov xxxi.30. If a man would not work neither shall he eat Thes iii.10. Incidentally her mother born 1834 gave a Christmas present of a leather cigar holder to her future husband in 1855, she wrote on it in a clear flowing hand, where did she learn from? probably her parents, her father was a painters labourer In 1830 when her parents married, both signed the register, when her grandparents married in 1807 Lambeth they both made their mark Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 23:33, Bonnie Ostler wrote: > The whole idea of samplers done by girls was to complete them under the > tutelage of their mother or some other adult female. It was a learning > exercise. If she was capable of doing it without instruction there would > not have been much reason for having her do it. > > Bonnie

This has been a very interesting dialogue. I am reading a book by Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe about the crossover between oracy and literacy in Anglo-Saxon times. Something she mentions is that predictive orthography speeds up our modern reading times. Spelling in England was not standardised until some time in the Victorian era, I'm not sure when exactly. Readers in the early Middle Ages read out loud, even if alone. I wonder when that ceased to be so? We are so used to silent reading. As people have mentioned, although we consider reading and writing as two halves of a whole, that was not the case in the past when they were separate skills. Marie

I think other projects replaced it Karen. I am not sure but I think one of the original contributors passed away a while ago .It was a big help to me as one of the few online resources in the early days so a big belated thank you to all the transcribers. I think that there are some records on there-in the Marshland district-which are still not easy to find on any other online sites. Rosie On 26/07/2014 05:42, Karen Hodges via wrote: > I am interested in finding out why the Norfolk Transcription Archive > website is no longer updated. Did it move to a new website or did other > projects replace it? > > Karen > Australia > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In the oxford dictionary of surnames it says that the surname Bird is found in South Norfolk. This is true for my family that are located in Wormegay/Marham in the 1690's. I have looked at the 1714 Poll Tax and found the name mention in six hundreds with three being together on the South East Coast and the other three in the West; two in the North west and one in the South West. I am looking for information on the surname from Hearth tax records. I notice on google that there is a few hearth tax returns for Norfolk and also an exemption return. That the records are patchy with areas missing. Any information on the return areas or the surname Bird is appreciated. Karen

After the two owners of the NTA decided to stop work on this website, all transcribers who could be contacted were asked to approve their transcriptions being copied to FreeREG. Nearly everyone did that and FreeREG was pleased to use those transcriptions to give them a good start with their Norfolk transcriptions plus some transcribers from NTA transferred to FreeREG. NTA gave the Norfolk FreeREG a leg up. Bonnie Ostler On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Karen Hodges via <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Rosie > > Yes is it a good site. I have been looking over some of the entries on > hearth tax. I did find a mention in the archives that it was going to a new > site but the link did not work. The transcribers did do a wonderful job. > > Karen > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think other projects replaced it Karen. I am not sure but I think one > > of the original contributors passed away a while ago .It was a big help > to > > me as one of the few online resources in the early days so a big belated > > thank you to all the transcribers. > > I think that there are some records on there-in the Marshland > > district-which are still not easy to find on any other online sites. > > Rosie > > On 26/07/2014 05:42, Karen Hodges via wrote: > > > > I am interested in finding out why the Norfolk Transcription Archive > > website is no longer updated. Did it move to a new website or did other > > projects replace it? > > > > Karen > > Australia > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Mike No I don't there is any misunderstanding in the context & period we are talking about it In the period, literate would mean having the ability to read and write to some very basic level, enough to read basic words and write a small amount I am not suggesting they would be proficient enough to write a thesis or dissertation but just the bare basics The schedules left with the household were not particularly difficult to understand but many people (and enumerators) misunderstood them and entered the wrong things in the wrong places or in some cases entered people that were not there on the night or omitted others But they still do that today I shall not repeat what I have said on the subject of signing the register as I have already said it in previous posts As to my great grandmother, no I credit her with more intelligence, she completed a full sampler with alphabet included when aged ten, I suspect that not many ten year olds today could do the same, and back then a fair portion would have been by candle light to boot Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 20:15, Mike Fry via wrote: > Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or glossed over to > a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted literacy at > various times through the ages. > > Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old 3Rs that I > fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before sociologists were > invented and started mucking around with society! [Personal Opinion]

Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or glossed over to a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted literacy at various times through the ages. Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old 3Rs that I fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before sociologists were invented and started mucking around with society! [Personal Opinion] Before schooling became mandatory, people relied on ad hoc learning, probably by wrote, from well meaning ministers. This is when people learnt to write their names by copying someone else. The fact that a person could write their name doesn't, to my mind, mean that they were literate. Schooling then became mandatory up until the age of 12 (I think) and it is from then that we start defining literacy in more rigorous terms. But again, can you really say that kids were literate as we understand it today? On 25 Jul 2014 19:00, Nivard Ovington via wrote: > My great grandmother could clearly write in rural Buckinghamshire in > 1870 when she produced a sampler at age ten Not to decry her achievements, but this could have been copied from something else. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

The whole idea of samplers done by girls was to complete them under the tutelage of their mother or some other adult female. It was a learning exercise. If she was capable of doing it without instruction there would not have been much reason for having her do it. Bonnie On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike > > No I don't there is any misunderstanding in the context & period we are > talking about it > > In the period, literate would mean having the ability to read and write > to some very basic level, enough to read basic words and write a small > amount > > I am not suggesting they would be proficient enough to write a thesis or > dissertation but just the bare basics > > The schedules left with the household were not particularly difficult to > understand but many people (and enumerators) misunderstood them and > entered the wrong things in the wrong places or in some cases entered > people that were not there on the night or omitted others > > But they still do that today > > I shall not repeat what I have said on the subject of signing the > register as I have already said it in previous posts > > As to my great grandmother, no I credit her with more intelligence, she > completed a full sampler with alphabet included when aged ten, I suspect > that not many ten year olds today could do the same, and back then a > fair portion would have been by candle light to boot > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > On 25/07/2014 20:15, Mike Fry via wrote: > > Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or glossed > over to > > a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted literacy > at > > various times through the ages. > > > > Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old 3Rs > that I > > fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before > sociologists were > > invented and started mucking around with society! [Personal Opinion] > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Rosie Why would they learn to read and write ? Despite your thoughts to the contrary, it was to improve themselves, a much stronger urge then (with good reason) than the present generation There can hardly be a walk of life that reading and writing were not important to some degree or another, much as using a computer is today, reading the bible for one, getting on with traders and workmen, checking invoices and charges, reading the news as sparse as it was, the various taxes thrust upon them, plus self importance, the wish to strive for a better future, find a wife, some would not but many would hanker for a better life and try all they could to achieve it Although there were schools of a sort from very early on, you did not have to attend one to learn to read & write, my mother taught me before I ever went to a school My great grandmother could clearly write in rural Buckinghamshire in 1870 when she produced a sampler at age ten Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 17:14, xpn11 via wrote: > Doesnt surprise me at all. Why would team men and yard men and labourers > need to write? They may have picked up some skills when the National > Schools opened, but if even if they read to entertain and improve > themselves they wouldnt have had much reason to write once they left > school at 12 . > I doubt that my brother in law has written much recently other than > filling in his area payment forms for Defra ! When I moved to my small > Norfolk primary school in 1959 they were still using slates in the

Hi Glynn You are perfectly entitled to your opinions There is plenty of evidence to suggest your earlier statement is incorrect I did state the very point you throw back, signing a register does not mean the person is literate, however wiser and more learned people than you or I decided that the number was not significant in the overall scheme of things Like you my references are wide ranging and reliable We will have to agree to disagree Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 17:30, Glynn Burrows via wrote: > Hi Nivard > > Signing a name in a register does not mean someone is literate any > more than saying "Je suis Anglais" is any indication that I speak > French. > > As I said earlier, my sources are wide ranging and reliable but I am > not putting the details on here at the moment. > > > Glynn

Hi Nivard Signing a name in a register does not mean someone is literate any more than saying "Je suis Anglais" is any indication that I speak French. As I said earlier, my sources are wide ranging and reliable but I am not putting the details on here at the moment. Glynn http://www.norfolk-tours.co.uk

Doesnt surprise me at all. Why would team men and yard men and labourers need to write? They may have picked up some skills when the National Schools opened, but if even if they read to entertain and improve themselves they wouldnt have had much reason to write once they left school at 12 . I doubt that my brother in law has written much recently other than filling in his area payment forms for Defra ! When I moved to my small Norfolk primary school in 1959 they were still using slates in the infants' room so goodness knows what it was like 60 years before. My great grandmother could not sign her name when she married in 1885-but her younger sister could as a witness and so could my great grandfather. I will have to look into when the school opened in her home village because I am pretty sure her family would have been too poor to afford a fee before the free school was opened. When people at the turn of the century were still scraping a living , living off cods head and herring and the kids sharing an egg if there was one, hanging sacks at the door to keep snow out in winter I reckon being able to write was not exactly paramount in their minds. Rosie. On 25/07/2014 16:45, Bonnie Ostler via wrote: > Hi Nivard > > My Rumble ancestors are in the 1810 Bible Census for East Tuddenham > parish. A deceased vicar for this parish left a legacy to purchase Bibles, > testaments and prayer books on an ongoing basis for everyone in the parish > who wanted them. The successor kept records of presentations he made to > young residents of the parish. In 1810 he finally took a little census of > 62 cottage households asking how many each house could read and what books > were in each house. Thomas, the eldest son, was five at the time. John > Rumble answered the first question with 'a child is learning'. It seems > most likely that Thomas was that child. Thomas' youngest daughter lived > with her daughter and her husband until her death in 1913. She told her > grandchildren stories most nights. She spoke frequently about her father, > Thomas, reading his Bible to the family. A Bible said to belong to Thomas > was passed down to the eldest grandson but there is nothing written in it. > We have the original farm deed. There are a variety of original documents > in the farm account box bearing Thomas Rumble's X. No one in the older > generation had ever seen Thomas' signature when I began researching in 1972. > > On another branch of my family, my gr2grandmother was twelve when she > was taught to read by a carpenter who boarded in her parents' home but > someone else taught her to write a couple of years later. > > I think it may be more common than we realize. It becomes more difficult > to prove as time passes and oral accounts become third or fourth hand. > > Bonnie > > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Bonnie >> >> Quite so and vice versa >> >> You may well be correct in your 1846 & 1885 events but some documents >> were copied or made out by others for record, a mark used to show the >> original carried a signature >> >> A mark X does not always mean the person couldn't sign their name >> >> Seems odd to be able to read yet not write, if only his name but then it >> wouldn't shock me either, nothing does these days :-) >> >> The circumstances I refer to in my previous posts take into account the >> possibility that some who made their mark in the marriage registers >> could in fact write, it was considered an insignificant number in >> relation to the whole >> >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >> >> On 25/07/2014 15:35, Bonnie Ostler via wrote: >>> Literacy was not necessarily attached to ability to sign one's name. My >>> gr2grandfather, Thomas Rumble b. 1805 East Tuddenham could read. He was >> a >>> Methodist convert and read his Bible every day but no one had taught him >> to >>> write. He made his mark on the deed when he purchased his farm in >> Ontario, >>> Canada 1846 and also on his will 1885. >>> >>> Bonnie >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi again Yes there is the problem, trying to prove something, 2 + 2 isn't always 4 is it <g> You can draw a conclusion if people could sign their name or filled in forms, not so easy if those forms no longer exist or can't be found Its often surprising just how little we know about our ancestors, how they spoke, dressed, conducted themselves etc very little remains on the whole But then if it were all recorded and wrapped up in a bundle for us to find, we probably wouldn't be doing this would we :-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 16:45, Bonnie Ostler wrote: > Hi Nivard > > My Rumble ancestors are in the 1810 Bible Census for East Tuddenham > parish. A deceased vicar for this parish left a legacy to purchase > Bibles, testaments and prayer books on an ongoing basis for everyone in > the parish who wanted them. The successor kept records of presentations > he made to young residents of the parish. In 1810 he finally took a > little census of 62 cottage households asking how many each house could

Hi Bonnie Quite so and vice versa You may well be correct in your 1846 & 1885 events but some documents were copied or made out by others for record, a mark used to show the original carried a signature A mark X does not always mean the person couldn't sign their name Seems odd to be able to read yet not write, if only his name but then it wouldn't shock me either, nothing does these days :-) The circumstances I refer to in my previous posts take into account the possibility that some who made their mark in the marriage registers could in fact write, it was considered an insignificant number in relation to the whole Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 15:35, Bonnie Ostler via wrote: > Literacy was not necessarily attached to ability to sign one's name. My > gr2grandfather, Thomas Rumble b. 1805 East Tuddenham could read. He was a > Methodist convert and read his Bible every day but no one had taught him to > write. He made his mark on the deed when he purchased his farm in Ontario, > Canada 1846 and also on his will 1885. > > Bonnie

Hi all, This is my first contribution but I've been reading on here for years. Just wanted to contribute that In Norfolk we kids were using slates in the late 1940's. Note sure how much earlier stone tablets were abandoned. ;-) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 3:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 191 Today's Topics: 1. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Rosemary Jones) 2. Re: NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 190 (Glynn Burrows) 3. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Bonnie Ostler) 4. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) 5. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Bonnie Ostler) 6. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) 7. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Mike Fry) 8. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:23:32 -0500 From: Rosemary Jones <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 To: xpn11 <[email protected]>, [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]om> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 My great grandfather signed his name in the marriage register but as he got older he made his mark. The marriage register signature is very poor and may have been an effort; his wife had the better hand and her signature is easily come by. Rosemary On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM, xpn11 via <[email protected]> wrote: > Doesnt surprise me at all. Why would team men and yard men and > labourers need to write? They may have picked up some skills when the > National Schools opened, but if even if they read to entertain and > improve themselves they wouldnt have had much reason to write once > they left school at 12 . > I doubt that my brother in law has written much recently other than > filling in his area payment forms for Defra ! When I moved to my small > Norfolk primary school in 1959 they were still using slates in the > infants' room so goodness knows what it was like 60 years before. > My great grandmother could not sign her name when she married in > 1885-but her younger sister could as a witness and so could my great > grandfather. I will have to look into when the school opened in her > home village because I am pretty sure her family would have been too > poor to afford a fee before the free school was opened. > When people at the turn of the century were still scraping a living , > living off cods head and herring and the kids sharing an egg if there > was one, hanging sacks at the door to keep snow out in winter I reckon > being able to write was not exactly paramount in their minds. > Rosie. > On 25/07/2014 16:45, Bonnie Ostler via wrote: > > Hi Nivard > > > > My Rumble ancestors are in the 1810 Bible Census for East Tuddenham > > parish. A deceased vicar for this parish left a legacy to purchase > Bibles, > > testaments and prayer books on an ongoing basis for everyone in the > parish > > who wanted them. The successor kept records of presentations he > > made to young residents of the parish. In 1810 he finally took a > > little census > of > > 62 cottage households asking how many each house could read and what > books > > were in each house. Thomas, the eldest son, was five at the time. > > John Rumble answered the first question with 'a child is learning'. > > It seems most likely that Thomas was that child. Thomas' youngest > > daughter lived with her daughter and her husband until her death in > > 1913. She told her grandchildren stories most nights. She spoke > > frequently about her > father, > > Thomas, reading his Bible to the family. A Bible said to belong to > > Thomas was passed down to the eldest grandson but there is nothing > > written in > it. > > We have the original farm deed. There are a variety of original > documents > > in the farm account box bearing Thomas Rumble's X. No one in the older > > generation had ever seen Thomas' signature when I began researching > > in > 1972. > > > > On another branch of my family, my gr2grandmother was twelve when > > she was taught to read by a carpenter who boarded in her parents' > > home but someone else taught her to write a couple of years later. > > > > I think it may be more common than we realize. It becomes more > > difficult to prove as time passes and oral accounts become third or fourth hand. > > > > Bonnie > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Nivard Ovington via < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Bonnie > >> > >> Quite so and vice versa > >> > >> You may well be correct in your 1846 & 1885 events but some > >> documents were copied or made out by others for record, a mark used > >> to show the original carried a signature > >> > >> A mark X does not always mean the person couldn't sign their name > >> > >> Seems odd to be able to read yet not write, if only his name but > >> then it wouldn't shock me either, nothing does these days :-) > >> > >> The circumstances I refer to in my previous posts take into account > >> the possibility that some who made their mark in the marriage > >> registers could in fact write, it was considered an insignificant > >> number in relation to the whole > >> > >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > >> > >> On 25/07/2014 15:35, Bonnie Ostler via wrote: > >>> Literacy was not necessarily attached to ability to sign one's name. > My > >>> gr2grandfather, Thomas Rumble b. 1805 East Tuddenham could read. > >>> He > was > >> a > >>> Methodist convert and read his Bible every day but no one had > >>> taught > him > >> to > >>> write. He made his mark on the deed when he purchased his farm in > >> Ontario, > >>> Canada 1846 and also on his will 1885. > >>> > >>> Bonnie > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:30:32 +0100 From: Glynn Burrows <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NFK] NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 190 To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Nivard Signing a name in a register does not mean someone is literate any more than saying "Je suis Anglais" is any indication that I speak French. As I said earlier, my sources are wide ranging and reliable but I am not putting the details on here at the moment. Glynn http://www.norfolk-tours.co.uk ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:38:22 -0400 From: Bonnie Ostler <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 To: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]>, [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]om> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Nivard East Tuddenham parish registers and an assortment of documents from the parish chest remained in the parish until fairly recently, maybe 25 years ago, when they were finally placed in the Norfolk Record Office. The 1810 Bible Census for East Tuddenham parish is only two pages long. Initially, I thought other pages were missing because there were definitely more than 62 households in the parish but after finding the 1813 documents described below, I realized the vicar had only surveyed the poor. The vicar had no reason to identify those who could buy their own reading material. Too bad. It would have been interesting to have an indication of this group's literacy. Another document that amounts to a second census for that period. On 19 Apr 1813 at a town meeting Edward Campling, overseer, made a rate at 3 shillings on the pound to raise the sum 305.14 for the averages and other disbursements for two quarters. Campling included two lists, one includes 46 heads of households who could afford to pay the rates assessed to each of them...total 306.10.6 The second list contains names of 57 cottagers with a notation...lost rate by cottages, valuation ?110.00 Bonnie ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:46:31 +0100 From: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi Glynn You are perfectly entitled to your opinions There is plenty of evidence to suggest your earlier statement is incorrect I did state the very point you throw back, signing a register does not mean the person is literate, however wiser and more learned people than you or I decided that the number was not significant in the overall scheme of things Like you my references are wide ranging and reliable We will have to agree to disagree Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 17:30, Glynn Burrows via wrote: > Hi Nivard > > Signing a name in a register does not mean someone is literate any > more than saying "Je suis Anglais" is any indication that I speak > French. > > As I said earlier, my sources are wide ranging and reliable but I am > not putting the details on here at the moment. > > > Glynn ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:46:59 -0400 From: Bonnie Ostler <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]om> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Rosie When emigrants from England wrote home from Canada, they often complained about being unable to express themselves as they would like due to the tiny scraps of paper upon which they had to write their letters. Pens, ink and paper may have been hard to come by for some who would have liked to learn to write. Bonnie ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:00:23 +0100 From: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi Rosie Why would they learn to read and write ? Despite your thoughts to the contrary, it was to improve themselves, a much stronger urge then (with good reason) than the present generation There can hardly be a walk of life that reading and writing were not important to some degree or another, much as using a computer is today, reading the bible for one, getting on with traders and workmen, checking invoices and charges, reading the news as sparse as it was, the various taxes thrust upon them, plus self importance, the wish to strive for a better future, find a wife, some would not but many would hanker for a better life and try all they could to achieve it Although there were schools of a sort from very early on, you did not have to attend one to learn to read & write, my mother taught me before I ever went to a school My great grandmother could clearly write in rural Buckinghamshire in 1870 when she produced a sampler at age ten Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 17:14, xpn11 via wrote: > Doesnt surprise me at all. Why would team men and yard men and > labourers need to write? They may have picked up some skills when the > National Schools opened, but if even if they read to entertain and > improve themselves they wouldnt have had much reason to write once > they left school at 12 . > I doubt that my brother in law has written much recently other than > filling in his area payment forms for Defra ! When I moved to my small > Norfolk primary school in 1959 they were still using slates in the ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:15:23 +0200 From: Mike Fry <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or glossed over to a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted literacy at various times through the ages. Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old 3Rs that I fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before sociologists were invented and started mucking around with society! [Personal Opinion] Before schooling became mandatory, people relied on ad hoc learning, probably by wrote, from well meaning ministers. This is when people learnt to write their names by copying someone else. The fact that a person could write their name doesn't, to my mind, mean that they were literate. Schooling then became mandatory up until the age of 12 (I think) and it is from then that we start defining literacy in more rigorous terms. But again, can you really say that kids were literate as we understand it today? On 25 Jul 2014 19:00, Nivard Ovington via wrote: > My great grandmother could clearly write in rural Buckinghamshire in > 1870 when she produced a sampler at age ten Not to decry her achievements, but this could have been copied from something else. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:05:50 +0100 From: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi Mike No I don't there is any misunderstanding in the context & period we are talking about it In the period, literate would mean having the ability to read and write to some very basic level, enough to read basic words and write a small amount I am not suggesting they would be proficient enough to write a thesis or dissertation but just the bare basics The schedules left with the household were not particularly difficult to understand but many people (and enumerators) misunderstood them and entered the wrong things in the wrong places or in some cases entered people that were not there on the night or omitted others But they still do that today I shall not repeat what I have said on the subject of signing the register as I have already said it in previous posts As to my great grandmother, no I credit her with more intelligence, she completed a full sampler with alphabet included when aged ten, I suspect that not many ten year olds today could do the same, and back then a fair portion would have been by candle light to boot Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 20:15, Mike Fry via wrote: > Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or glossed over to > a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted literacy at > various times through the ages. > > Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old 3Rs that I > fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before sociologists were > invented and started mucking around with society! [Personal Opinion] ------------------------------ To contact the NORFOLK list administrator, send an email to [email protected] To post a message to the NORFOLK mailing list, send an email to [email protected] __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 191 ***************************************

Hi Glynn I would refer you to the Fifth annual report of the registrar-general Page xlix Available on Histpop http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/ Tables Proportion per cent. of males and females in each county signing the marriage register with marks (Pages xlix-l) (Marriages 1841) Eastern Counties Norfolk Signed the Marriage Register with Marks :- (by percentage) Men 42% Women 48% Mean 45% So 58% of men & 52% of women signed in 1841 Norfolk was not the worst by any means For England as a whole who made their mark Men 32.8% Women 48.79% Mean 40.73% So overall 59.27% of those marrying signed the register and that is in 1841 I can accept that pockets of the population, rural in particular would have a lower level of literacy, but again I would just say that taking a worse case scenario of half of the Norfolk percentage of 55% who signed, so nearly three in ten people were literate So what evidence do you have that it was far worse in 1861? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 10:23, Glynn Burrows via wrote: > Apologies for not coming back to this but I have been busy. > > My knowledge about the standards of literacy of the general > population in the 1860's comes from three years research into the > living conditions of the labouring class of Norfolk around the > 1850-70 period. My sources include national reports as well as local > records. > > If anyone wants more information, please feel free to contact me > offsite. My research is for a proposed book to be published in the > next few years. > > Glynn