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

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

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 >

Can anyone please help with this- When I look on the 1871 census for Rebecca Green b 1785 I find her in St Margaret, Norwich, Upper West Street and then something like Suket Whater written after that – what is this and what does it mean? She is with her daughter Elizabeth a draper and her grand daughter Mary Ann ( my great grandmother) 1861 census Rebecca is in Upper Westwick Street, St Margaret, Norwich. I presume not the same Street but is it near by? Wendy

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 >

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 On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

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 http://www.norfolk-tours.co.uk

It says formerly housekeeper on the form and gives her birthplace as Hockwold and her daughters' birthplaces as Methwold so they are from South West Norfolk. Not quite sure where Upper West street is these days but I think it was near Pottergate which five minutes walk from Westwick Street. If you can read the Yard name ( Norwich yards were famous -or infamous-you can google Plunketts Norwich and maybe find images or details of the yard they lived in) Rosie On 25/07/2014 00:23, Wendy Inskeep via wrote: > Can anyone please help with this- > > When I look on the 1871 census for Rebecca Green b 1785 I find her in St Margaret, Norwich, Upper West Street and then something like Suket Whater written after that – what is this and what does it mean? She is with her daughter Elizabeth a draper and her grand daughter Mary Ann ( my great grandmother) > 1861 census Rebecca is in Upper Westwick Street, St Margaret, Norwich. I presume not the same Street but is it near by? > > Wendy > > ------------------------------- > 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

Dear list members I'm trying to find the grave of Dorothy Louisa Dix of Emneth who died at Wisbech on 16 October 1936. Does anybody have access to any Emneth MIs that might detail her grave. It would be nice to establish her grave location before making the trip to Norfolk. With thanks Paul

It seems we were all right! This extract from the Encyclopaedia of Genealogy:- Census Records - United Kingdom Census returns for England and Wales are subject to a 100-year non- disclosure rule. Copies of census returns are available for public inspection for the years 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901 only. Not all census returns have survived, there are some original census enumerators books missing or damaged beyond repair and have not been microfilmed. The householder was to complete their individual household schedules recording who was in their household during the period Sunday night to Monday morning. On the morning after census night, the census enumerators collected the household schedules. If these were not completed properly, the census enumerator was supposed to ask for extra details at the doorstep, although there is considerable evidence that this was not done uniformly. If the householder was unable to fill in the schedule, perhaps because he or she was illiterate, the census enumerator was to fill it in for them. In 1871, the majority of some Welsh-speaking parishes in Anglesey were filled in by the enumerators. These individual household schedules were then transcribed into the census enumerators' books, together with statistical information, and it is from these books that copies of the census returns can be obtained. There is of course the question of how right this document is, but the statement does explain the problem of householder illiteracy - especially as regards to the non- English speaking areas of Wales. Richard -----Original Message----- From: Bob Rust via Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:50 AM To: Nivard Ovington ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett Even if there was a good level of literacy many people with less education probably wrote phonetically. Even if the householder could write if he had only hears a place or person's name from his Mum or Dad he would write what he had heard. Rosie mentioned Aborough (Attleborough) which I have seen as Ayboro. Unsden for Hunstanton. Aysboro for Happisburgh. Wisbeck for Wisbech (the way my Granddad always said it). Only Sunday I came across Feeby for a child registered Phoebe (one of his own kids). In 1955 the national literacy rate was stated to be 84% (after 78 years of compulsory education). This is a current quote from the National Literacy Trust:- "One person in six in the UK lives with poor literacy. This holds them back at every stage of their life. As a child they won't be able to succeed at school, as a young adult they will be locked out of the job market, and on becoming a parent they won't be able to support their child's learning." We've still got some way to go to catch up with the Cubans (99%) Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]> To: "Richard" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett > Hi Richard > > Please see my previous posts, there is a link to an article on the subject > of education in the period, I have read several over time and most come to > the same or similar conclusions > > That by 1841 more than 65% of males and 50% of females were literate > > The percentage would of course be higher in urban areas and lower in rural > areas, but as I posted previously, even if you say half of the estimated > figure were literate, in 1841 between 2 to 3 people in every ten were > literate > > So most households would have someone who could read and write to some > degree and those that didn't had friends, neighbours or relations that > could help > > No doubt some households had no literate persons living there and other > households most or all could read and write, then as now people strove to > better themselves and being literate was a major factor in that > > The schedules were left a week or so in advance, so its not as if they had > to do them there and then, then as now there were doubtless some who > refused or could not be bothered to fill in the schedules as required, > some will have changed their minds when they were told they would be fined > if they didn't comply, no doubt causing a return journey for the hard > pressed & underpaid enumerator > > There were as many situations as we could think of, from people who were > missed off, to those counted twice, those who gave false data and those > who misunderstood the instructions, and anywhere inbetween, but in the > main, most people complied with the request for information > > That is not to say that enumerators did not fill in some schedules, they > surely did, how many would have varied across the country but they simply > would not have had the time to stand on every doorstep and fill in the > schedules for them > > Unlike America where the census was taken on the doorstep, a big factor > being the distances the enumerator had to travel and the variety of > languages and levels of education he would encounter, there they took the > census over a period of time, not all on one day as in England and Wales > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 23/07/2014 09:31, Richard wrote: >> Surely in 1841+ many of the house occupiers would have been illiterate, >> so could not fill in the forms themselves? >> >> Richard > > ------------------------------- 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 Bob I wouldn't disagree with any of that The reason for many people to know precise details of exactly where and when they were born had yet to be necessary in the period Some will have put down how they thought it was spelled rather than how it should be spelled (if indeed there was one), some will have put the place they could remember earliest, which may not have been where they were born, plus a myriad of other reasons for incorrect places stated, enumerators then added to that confusion by transcribing what he thought it said, if he was conversant with one County and not others he may think he recognised a place so entered that, I have one from yesterday, in one census a wife is enumerated as born Scotland, in the next Portobello Staffs, you can see the enumerator finding Portobello S??? in poor handwriting and thinking its Scotland as thats the only one he had heard of, but there is one in Rugeley Staffordshire but as he had probably never heard of it where he was in Yorkshire, Scotland he put down Likewise with age, there was not a great need to know exactly how old someone was, so near enough is some cases would do, in others they manipulated their age to suit, up and down, male and female There are many variables on the census to take into account not least that people have always had a deep mistrust of authority, why are they asking these questions? are they going to tax me more? are they going to fine me because my children work and don't go to school? so I will tell them what I think they need to know and no more As regards the literacy levels today, much depends upon how you judge it, whilst some children today are not great spellers and certainly not many are good letter writers, they can whiz over a computer screen in a blink of an eye, or send a text quicker than I can find my phone much less use it :-) It has always been the case that certain bodies will play the numbers game to their own advantage, underplaying this and over stating that to make their points seem valid Times change but some things don't Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 23/07/2014 11:50, Bob Rust wrote: > Even if there was a good level of literacy many people with less > education probably wrote phonetically. > Even if the householder could write if he had only hears a place or > person's name from his Mum or Dad he would write what he had heard. > Rosie mentioned Aborough (Attleborough) which I have seen as Ayboro. > Unsden for Hunstanton. Aysboro for Happisburgh. Wisbeck for Wisbech (the > way my Granddad always said it). > Only Sunday I came across Feeby for a child registered Phoebe (one of > his own kids). > In 1955 the national literacy rate was stated to be 84% (after 78 years > of compulsory education). > This is a current quote from the National Literacy Trust:- > "One person in six in the UK lives with poor literacy. This holds them > back at every stage of their life. As a child they won't be able to > succeed at school, as a young adult they will be locked out of the job > market, and on becoming a parent they won't be able to support their > child's learning." > We've still got some way to go to catch up with the Cubans (99%) > > Bob

Even if there was a good level of literacy many people with less education probably wrote phonetically. Even if the householder could write if he had only hears a place or person's name from his Mum or Dad he would write what he had heard. Rosie mentioned Aborough (Attleborough) which I have seen as Ayboro. Unsden for Hunstanton. Aysboro for Happisburgh. Wisbeck for Wisbech (the way my Granddad always said it). Only Sunday I came across Feeby for a child registered Phoebe (one of his own kids). In 1955 the national literacy rate was stated to be 84% (after 78 years of compulsory education). This is a current quote from the National Literacy Trust:- "One person in six in the UK lives with poor literacy. This holds them back at every stage of their life. As a child they won't be able to succeed at school, as a young adult they will be locked out of the job market, and on becoming a parent they won't be able to support their child's learning." We've still got some way to go to catch up with the Cubans (99%) Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]> To: "Richard" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett > Hi Richard > > Please see my previous posts, there is a link to an article on the subject > of education in the period, I have read several over time and most come to > the same or similar conclusions > > That by 1841 more than 65% of males and 50% of females were literate > > The percentage would of course be higher in urban areas and lower in rural > areas, but as I posted previously, even if you say half of the estimated > figure were literate, in 1841 between 2 to 3 people in every ten were > literate > > So most households would have someone who could read and write to some > degree and those that didn't had friends, neighbours or relations that > could help > > No doubt some households had no literate persons living there and other > households most or all could read and write, then as now people strove to > better themselves and being literate was a major factor in that > > The schedules were left a week or so in advance, so its not as if they had > to do them there and then, then as now there were doubtless some who > refused or could not be bothered to fill in the schedules as required, > some will have changed their minds when they were told they would be fined > if they didn't comply, no doubt causing a return journey for the hard > pressed & underpaid enumerator > > There were as many situations as we could think of, from people who were > missed off, to those counted twice, those who gave false data and those > who misunderstood the instructions, and anywhere inbetween, but in the > main, most people complied with the request for information > > That is not to say that enumerators did not fill in some schedules, they > surely did, how many would have varied across the country but they simply > would not have had the time to stand on every doorstep and fill in the > schedules for them > > Unlike America where the census was taken on the doorstep, a big factor > being the distances the enumerator had to travel and the variety of > languages and levels of education he would encounter, there they took the > census over a period of time, not all on one day as in England and Wales > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 23/07/2014 09:31, Richard wrote: >> Surely in 1841+ many of the house occupiers would have been illiterate, >> so could not fill in the forms themselves? >> >> Richard > >

Hi Richard Please see my previous posts, there is a link to an article on the subject of education in the period, I have read several over time and most come to the same or similar conclusions That by 1841 more than 65% of males and 50% of females were literate The percentage would of course be higher in urban areas and lower in rural areas, but as I posted previously, even if you say half of the estimated figure were literate, in 1841 between 2 to 3 people in every ten were literate So most households would have someone who could read and write to some degree and those that didn't had friends, neighbours or relations that could help No doubt some households had no literate persons living there and other households most or all could read and write, then as now people strove to better themselves and being literate was a major factor in that The schedules were left a week or so in advance, so its not as if they had to do them there and then, then as now there were doubtless some who refused or could not be bothered to fill in the schedules as required, some will have changed their minds when they were told they would be fined if they didn't comply, no doubt causing a return journey for the hard pressed & underpaid enumerator There were as many situations as we could think of, from people who were missed off, to those counted twice, those who gave false data and those who misunderstood the instructions, and anywhere inbetween, but in the main, most people complied with the request for information That is not to say that enumerators did not fill in some schedules, they surely did, how many would have varied across the country but they simply would not have had the time to stand on every doorstep and fill in the schedules for them Unlike America where the census was taken on the doorstep, a big factor being the distances the enumerator had to travel and the variety of languages and levels of education he would encounter, there they took the census over a period of time, not all on one day as in England and Wales Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 23/07/2014 09:31, Richard wrote: > Surely in 1841+ many of the house occupiers would have been illiterate, > so could not fill in the forms themselves? > > Richard

Surely in 1841+ many of the house occupiers would have been illiterate, so could not fill in the forms themselves? Richard -----Original Message----- From: Nivard Ovington via Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett Hi Jean Unless I interpret your comments wrongly? >From 1841 to 1911 the census in England and Wales was conducted by leaving a schedule with the householder, to be filled in by them and collected after the census day, that schedule was then transcribed by the enumerator for 1841 to 1901, what we see today is the enumerators transcription (household schedules were destroyed) In 1911 they used new machinery to take information directly from the schedules and therefore enumerator transcription was unnecessary so the pages we see are in the householders own hand (or whoever they got to do it) they are also signed by the householder Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 23/07/2014 08:49, STANGROOM JEAN via wrote: > 1911 is the first census filled in by the householder all previous census > were filled in by a enumerater > you can see his name on the first page of each schedule. > > Lots of villages had schools mostly run by the church or a benefactor of > the village possibly the Lord of the Manor > if you read "The Children of Booton" by Launa Gray available from the NFHS > it gives you a clear understanding how > these schools worked for farming families. > > Jean ------------------------------- 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 Jean Unless I interpret your comments wrongly? From 1841 to 1911 the census in England and Wales was conducted by leaving a schedule with the householder, to be filled in by them and collected after the census day, that schedule was then transcribed by the enumerator for 1841 to 1901, what we see today is the enumerators transcription (household schedules were destroyed) In 1911 they used new machinery to take information directly from the schedules and therefore enumerator transcription was unnecessary so the pages we see are in the householders own hand (or whoever they got to do it) they are also signed by the householder Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 23/07/2014 08:49, STANGROOM JEAN via wrote: > 1911 is the first census filled in by the householder all previous census > were filled in by a enumerater > you can see his name on the first page of each schedule. > > Lots of villages had schools mostly run by the church or a benefactor of > the village possibly the Lord of the Manor > if you read "The Children of Booton" by Launa Gray available from the NFHS > it gives you a clear understanding how > these schools worked for farming families. > > Jean

1911 is the first census filled in by the householder all previous census were filled in by a enumerater you can see his name on the first page of each schedule. Lots of villages had schools mostly run by the church or a benefactor of the village possibly the Lord of the Manor if you read "The Children of Booton" by Launa Gray available from the NFHS it gives you a clear understanding how these schools worked for farming families. Jean On 23 July 2014 08:00, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 185 (Glynn Burrows) > 2. Re: 1861 census place - Henry Sillett (Jean Greenwood) > 3. Re: 1861 census place - Henry Sillett (Nivard Ovington) > 4. Re: 1861 census place - Henry Sillett ([email protected]) > 5. Re: 1861 census place - Henry Sillett (Nivard Ovington) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Glynn Burrows <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:02 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 185 > Hi All > > In my researches into life in Norfolk in the 1860's, the majority of the > general population of this beautiful County could not read and write to a > standard sufficient to enable them to fill in the census forms. > Nearly all of the adults filling in the forms for the 1861 census would > have been born before 1840, with many of them having been born during the > late Georgian period. The education of the poorer classes in rural England > was just about non-existant before the 1850's, apart from the odd Dame > School and anything picked up in the Workhouse. > > > Glynn > http://www.norfolk-tours.co.uk > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jean Greenwood <[email protected]> > To: Brian Sillett <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:48:51 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett > Hi Brian > > P/c of the Brooke ​ PRs are accessible at > > https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1416598 > > scroll down to View Images in this collection and click on line below > then in alpha list is Brooke. > > I have looked through most of what is available including marriages to 1854 > but can find no trace of the family. > > Cheers > Jean > > > > > > On 22 July 2014 12:26, Brian Sillett via <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Nivard, > > > > I thank you for your continuing interest interest and suggestions. The > 1861 > > census has his age 58 but in 1871 he was 78 and given I have his death > > certificate in 1872 age 80, I assume 58 should have been 68 but it looks > > like 58 on the image. > > > > If he was 80 in 1872, his birth year is about 1792. Given his wife Ann on > > the 1861 census is age 40, it looks as if Henry had a previous wife. His > > birth places on all census records I have looked at are all unclear. > > > > I have yet to find Henry, Ann or daughter Margaret on the 1851 census and > > must have another go. I don't have any access to Brooke, Nfk records > where > > Ann and Margaret were born. > > > > Many thanks again > > > > Brian Sillett > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nivard Ovington via > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:52 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett > > > > As in the vast majority of cases, the householder or whoever he/she > > coerced into doing it, filled in the schedule > > > > So accent has very little to do with it > > > > It would have a lot to do with the writing style of the person filling > > it in though > > > > And much to be said of the ability of the enumerator to read that writing > > > > He made his best stab at it and thats what we see on the pages online, > > ie the enumerators interpretation of what was on the schedule > > > > If he hadn't come across the place name on the schedule, he would do his > > best but he may be far wide of the mark of the actual place > > > > As the household schedules were destroyed we will never know what was on > > the schedule > > > > Have you found the target in other census years? He must have been > > around for the 1851 at least > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > On 22/07/2014 10:17, elizabeth howard via wrote: > > > Hi, I thought it said Arborough , and immediately > > > thought > > > of Narborough , but even with a thick Norfolk accent ( no disrespect > > > intended) spoken to a Yorkshire speaking enumerator. almost anything > > could > > > have been understood incorrectly .......and yes Tilletts are also > > Silletts > > > , > > > the whole thing is as you say tricky ..... > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:18:16 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett > Hi Glynn > > I would be interested to know how you come to the conclusion that you do > regarding the literacy of the population > > As there are few if any records which might contain their writing, its > very hard to say for sure, certainly the schedules are long gone > > One of the gauges used for literacy, is the ability to sign their names on > a marriage register, although flawed, even that shows a healthy percentage > signed their names by 1861 and is likely to understate literacy levels > rather than over state it > > People were in awe of authority, far more so than today, when the minister > said make your mark there, they did, regardless of their ability to write > their names, so if you gauge it on those who did sign, its likely there > were more with the ability rather than less > > Whilst there is absolutely no doubt that literacy was higher in the towns > than in the Countryside, it doesn't alter the fact that there would be > someone around who could fill in the schedule or help to do so in the > majority of cases > > The literacy levels are stated by several different sources as being > approx 75% for men and 65% for women by 1861 > > So take a worse case scenario that in the Countryside it was half that > > That means that more than three out of every ten people could write > > Its very hard to gauge distribution of literate people in every household > but you can see that in most households there would be someone who could > fill in the schedule, and for those that had no one, some will have had > friends, neighbours or relatives who could do it for them > > I just did a very small test sample, looking at Brooke marriage, I looked > at four pages in the register in 1837, so 24 marriages > > 29 out of 48 people signed their names in the register > > Thats approx 60% and thats is 1837, 24 years before the 1861 census > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 22/07/2014 13:05, Glynn Burrows via wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> In my researches into life in Norfolk in the 1860's, the majority of >> the general population of this beautiful County could not read and >> write to a standard sufficient to enable them to fill in the census >> forms. Nearly all of the adults filling in the forms for the 1861 >> census would have been born before 1840, with many of them having >> been born during the late Georgian period. The education of the >> poorer classes in rural England was just about non-existant before >> the 1850's, apart from the odd Dame School and anything picked up in >> the Workhouse. >> >> >> Glynn >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: [email protected] > To: Jean Greenwood <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:28:27 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett > I couldn't either- and I was just looking for a Margaret in case Henry in > his older age married a young widow. Is the registration on Free BMD at > Hartesmere Suffolk district likely to be the Margaret Sillett-can't see > any others to fit. > Rosie > On 22/07/2014 13:48, Jean Greenwood via wrote: > >> Hi Brian >> >> P/c of the Brooke ​ PRs are accessible at >> >> https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1416598 >> >> scroll down to View Images in this collection and click on line below >> then in alpha list is Brooke. >> >> I have looked through most of what is available including marriages to >> 1854 >> but can find no trace of the family. >> >> Cheers >> Jean >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 July 2014 12:26, Brian Sillett via <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Nivard, >>> >>> I thank you for your continuing interest interest and suggestions. The >>> 1861 >>> census has his age 58 but in 1871 he was 78 and given I have his death >>> certificate in 1872 age 80, I assume 58 should have been 68 but it looks >>> like 58 on the image. >>> >>> If he was 80 in 1872, his birth year is about 1792. Given his wife Ann on >>> the 1861 census is age 40, it looks as if Henry had a previous wife. His >>> birth places on all census records I have looked at are all unclear. >>> >>> I have yet to find Henry, Ann or daughter Margaret on the 1851 census and >>> must have another go. I don't have any access to Brooke, Nfk records >>> where >>> Ann and Margaret were born. >>> >>> Many thanks again >>> >>> Brian Sillett >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Nivard Ovington via >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:52 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett >>> >>> As in the vast majority of cases, the householder or whoever he/she >>> coerced into doing it, filled in the schedule >>> >>> So accent has very little to do with it >>> >>> It would have a lot to do with the writing style of the person filling >>> it in though >>> >>> And much to be said of the ability of the enumerator to read that writing >>> >>> He made his best stab at it and thats what we see on the pages online, >>> ie the enumerators interpretation of what was on the schedule >>> >>> If he hadn't come across the place name on the schedule, he would do his >>> best but he may be far wide of the mark of the actual place >>> >>> As the household schedules were destroyed we will never know what was on >>> the schedule >>> >>> Have you found the target in other census years? He must have been >>> around for the 1851 at least >>> >>> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >>> >>> On 22/07/2014 10:17, elizabeth howard via wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, I thought it said Arborough , and immediately >>>> thought >>>> of Narborough , but even with a thick Norfolk accent ( no disrespect >>>> intended) spoken to a Yorkshire speaking enumerator. almost anything >>>> >>> could >>> >>>> have been understood incorrectly .......and yes Tilletts are also >>>> >>> Silletts >>> >>>> , >>>> the whole thing is as you say tricky ..... >>>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> > To: Brian Sillett <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:04:25 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett > Hi Brian > > There are some serious problems regarding that 1861 household > > In 1861 there is a Henry SILLETT head married 58 rag collector ???borough > Norfolk > Ann SILLETT wife married 40 Brooke Norfolk > Margaret Jane SILLETT 11 Brooke Norfolk > > Going back to the 1851 census > > On Ancestry there are only four Ann* born 1819 to 1823 Brooke Norfolk > > Anne Palmer DARBY > > Mary Ann ELLIS > > Ann GADGE > > Ann SILAM > > None have a child Margaret b1850ish in Brooke or elsewhere > > Of Margaret, there are two born 1849 to 1851 Brooke Norfolk in the 1851, a > Margaret KENT to James & Sarah and an Eliza Margaret WARNER to Robert & > Charlotte > > The only Margaret SILLETT is registered in Hartismere in 1850 > > Brooke came under Lodden reg district but in the GRO there are no Margaret > Jane registered at all pre census > > There is but one registered in Dec qtr 1851 > > A Margaret Jane RICHES 13 207 but haven't found her after that > > In the 1871 entry he is stated as a widower but more telling is that he is > a lodger, so details may have been entered for him, rather than he himself > > He is enumerated as 78 a pedlar born what looks like Albrige Norfolk > Margaret is also a lodger unmarried aged 19 a housekeeper, born Brook > Norfolk > > Using the Genuki gazetteer the best options appear to be Alburgh or > Aldborough > > No amount of shaking the 1851 tree will make Henry fall out I am afraid > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 22/07/2014 12:26, Brian Sillett wrote: > >> Hi Nivard, >> >> I thank you for your continuing interest interest and suggestions. The >> 1861 census has his age 58 but in 1871 he was 78 and given I have his >> death certificate in 1872 age 80, I assume 58 should have been 68 but it >> looks like 58 on the image. >> >> If he was 80 in 1872, his birth year is about 1792. Given his wife Ann >> on the 1861 census is age 40, it looks as if Henry had a previous wife. >> His birth places on all census records I have looked at are all unclear. >> >> I have yet to find Henry, Ann or daughter Margaret on the 1851 census >> and must have another go. I don't have any access to Brooke, Nfk records >> where Ann and Margaret were born. >> >> Many thanks again >> >> Brian Sillett >> > > > 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. > >

Hi, I have 2 Norfolk interests The history of TRUNCH - see my website www.trunchhistory.weebly.com . Any more info on Trunch very welcome Family history of MANN, CANN, HIGH in Norfolk. See my website www.wadeeast.weebly.com I’m particularly stuck on the HIGHS. Charlotte born 1843 in NORWICH, just mother Susan HIGH on birth certificate, but also father William HIGH on Charlotte’s marriage certificate. Can’t find a marriage for Susan and William. Thanks Val Sent from Windows Mail

Hi Brian There are some serious problems regarding that 1861 household In 1861 there is a Henry SILLETT head married 58 rag collector ???borough Norfolk Ann SILLETT wife married 40 Brooke Norfolk Margaret Jane SILLETT 11 Brooke Norfolk Going back to the 1851 census On Ancestry there are only four Ann* born 1819 to 1823 Brooke Norfolk Anne Palmer DARBY Mary Ann ELLIS Ann GADGE Ann SILAM None have a child Margaret b1850ish in Brooke or elsewhere Of Margaret, there are two born 1849 to 1851 Brooke Norfolk in the 1851, a Margaret KENT to James & Sarah and an Eliza Margaret WARNER to Robert & Charlotte The only Margaret SILLETT is registered in Hartismere in 1850 Brooke came under Lodden reg district but in the GRO there are no Margaret Jane registered at all pre census There is but one registered in Dec qtr 1851 A Margaret Jane RICHES 13 207 but haven't found her after that In the 1871 entry he is stated as a widower but more telling is that he is a lodger, so details may have been entered for him, rather than he himself He is enumerated as 78 a pedlar born what looks like Albrige Norfolk Margaret is also a lodger unmarried aged 19 a housekeeper, born Brook Norfolk Using the Genuki gazetteer the best options appear to be Alburgh or Aldborough No amount of shaking the 1851 tree will make Henry fall out I am afraid Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 22/07/2014 12:26, Brian Sillett wrote: > Hi Nivard, > > I thank you for your continuing interest interest and suggestions. The > 1861 census has his age 58 but in 1871 he was 78 and given I have his > death certificate in 1872 age 80, I assume 58 should have been 68 but it > looks like 58 on the image. > > If he was 80 in 1872, his birth year is about 1792. Given his wife Ann > on the 1861 census is age 40, it looks as if Henry had a previous wife. > His birth places on all census records I have looked at are all unclear. > > I have yet to find Henry, Ann or daughter Margaret on the 1851 census > and must have another go. I don't have any access to Brooke, Nfk records > where Ann and Margaret were born. > > Many thanks again > > Brian Sillett

I couldn't either- and I was just looking for a Margaret in case Henry in his older age married a young widow. Is the registration on Free BMD at Hartesmere Suffolk district likely to be the Margaret Sillett-can't see any others to fit. Rosie On 22/07/2014 13:48, Jean Greenwood via wrote: > Hi Brian > > P/c of the Brooke ​ PRs are accessible at > > https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1416598 > > scroll down to View Images in this collection and click on line below > then in alpha list is Brooke. > > I have looked through most of what is available including marriages to 1854 > but can find no trace of the family. > > Cheers > Jean > > > > > > On 22 July 2014 12:26, Brian Sillett via <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Nivard, >> >> I thank you for your continuing interest interest and suggestions. The 1861 >> census has his age 58 but in 1871 he was 78 and given I have his death >> certificate in 1872 age 80, I assume 58 should have been 68 but it looks >> like 58 on the image. >> >> If he was 80 in 1872, his birth year is about 1792. Given his wife Ann on >> the 1861 census is age 40, it looks as if Henry had a previous wife. His >> birth places on all census records I have looked at are all unclear. >> >> I have yet to find Henry, Ann or daughter Margaret on the 1851 census and >> must have another go. I don't have any access to Brooke, Nfk records where >> Ann and Margaret were born. >> >> Many thanks again >> >> Brian Sillett >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nivard Ovington via >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:52 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [NFK] 1861 census place - Henry Sillett >> >> As in the vast majority of cases, the householder or whoever he/she >> coerced into doing it, filled in the schedule >> >> So accent has very little to do with it >> >> It would have a lot to do with the writing style of the person filling >> it in though >> >> And much to be said of the ability of the enumerator to read that writing >> >> He made his best stab at it and thats what we see on the pages online, >> ie the enumerators interpretation of what was on the schedule >> >> If he hadn't come across the place name on the schedule, he would do his >> best but he may be far wide of the mark of the actual place >> >> As the household schedules were destroyed we will never know what was on >> the schedule >> >> Have you found the target in other census years? He must have been >> around for the 1851 at least >> >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >> >> On 22/07/2014 10:17, elizabeth howard via wrote: >>> Hi, I thought it said Arborough , and immediately >>> thought >>> of Narborough , but even with a thick Norfolk accent ( no disrespect >>> intended) spoken to a Yorkshire speaking enumerator. almost anything >> could >>> have been understood incorrectly .......and yes Tilletts are also >> Silletts >>> , >>> the whole thing is as you say tricky ..... >> ------------------------------- >> 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

Hi Glynn I would be interested to know how you come to the conclusion that you do regarding the literacy of the population As there are few if any records which might contain their writing, its very hard to say for sure, certainly the schedules are long gone One of the gauges used for literacy, is the ability to sign their names on a marriage register, although flawed, even that shows a healthy percentage signed their names by 1861 and is likely to understate literacy levels rather than over state it People were in awe of authority, far more so than today, when the minister said make your mark there, they did, regardless of their ability to write their names, so if you gauge it on those who did sign, its likely there were more with the ability rather than less Whilst there is absolutely no doubt that literacy was higher in the towns than in the Countryside, it doesn't alter the fact that there would be someone around who could fill in the schedule or help to do so in the majority of cases The literacy levels are stated by several different sources as being approx 75% for men and 65% for women by 1861 So take a worse case scenario that in the Countryside it was half that That means that more than three out of every ten people could write Its very hard to gauge distribution of literate people in every household but you can see that in most households there would be someone who could fill in the schedule, and for those that had no one, some will have had friends, neighbours or relatives who could do it for them I just did a very small test sample, looking at Brooke marriage, I looked at four pages in the register in 1837, so 24 marriages 29 out of 48 people signed their names in the register Thats approx 60% and thats is 1837, 24 years before the 1861 census Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 22/07/2014 13:05, Glynn Burrows via wrote: > Hi All > > In my researches into life in Norfolk in the 1860's, the majority of > the general population of this beautiful County could not read and > write to a standard sufficient to enable them to fill in the census > forms. Nearly all of the adults filling in the forms for the 1861 > census would have been born before 1840, with many of them having > been born during the late Georgian period. The education of the > poorer classes in rural England was just about non-existant before > the 1850's, apart from the odd Dame School and anything picked up in > the Workhouse. > > > Glynn