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

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 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

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