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 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 >