If I may put my 2d worth here: The idea that someone in the house could write (eg the 13-year old cited earlier) and the possibility of transcription errors based on accent and unfamiliar names are not inconsistent. It is just that the enumerator is not the one making the mistake. Children (or even a wife, if not from the man's home area) can make the mistakes we often attribute to enumerators. Consider a young boy born after his parents migrated, and now at school. boy: "It says where were you born, dad" dad: [in his native accent] "Foulness" boy: [having never or rarely heard this word] writes as he hears "Fournass". If Father is the illiterate one, I doubt the child would ask how it was spelt! It is as likely then as now that children at school gain the local dominant accent... And whilst they would understand perfectly their parents non-local speech, isn't it possible that the understanding is limited to familiar conversation, rather than names of far-off towns? I did think one could use the relative accuracy of occupation words to test this, except that not only are original schedules not about any more, but with occupations at least, the Enumerator has a chance to correct them (sometimes making a new mistake, but maybe usually not). My wife's G-Grandfather migrated from Piddletrenthide DOR, by way of (probably) Flintshire, and St Helens LAN, to Gateshead DUR. My wife's family all firmly believed he was from a place called "Pigglestonhide" in Wales, as this is what Grandfather had said. In the event, one of the Gateshead census returns did luckily cite "Pittletrink DOR", a little more accurate, and in this case easy to guess. We don't know who filled in that census schedule. david beakhust david.beakhust@one-name.org -----Original Message----- From: Peter B Park [mailto:pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 03 April 2005 16:28 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > In message of 3 Apr, "Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> > > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > > > > > > > So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a > > > bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! > > > > Why does this myth persist. The enumerator delivered schedules to each > > household the during the week before census night. The schedules were filled > > in by the householder and collected after a check by the enumerator that all > > the correct parts had been filled in on the doorstep. There is no way an > > enumerator could have written out the details of 2,000 households in the > > houses - it took them days to copy the schedules into the books we see > > today. Hardness of hearing and accents very rarely came into the equation - > > relatively few households had no one that could read and write in them or > > living next door. I have a copy of an original schedule from Darlaston in > > 1861 signed by the 13 year old son. So please, lets give the enumerators a > > break and not blame them for all the evils of the world - well all the > > mistakes in the census. > > I think that a high proportion of the population was illiterate then, or > certainly in 1861 and this is why the schedule was signed by a 13 year > old as he was the only one who could write. So theonly way the forms > could get filled in was by the enumerator asking questions of the head > to the household. What's the guess as to the then illiteracy rate among > such heads? 40%? > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org Modern research shows that the levels of literacy were higher that we think - evidenced by thousands of letters written by paupers to overseers claiming non-resident relief from the mid-eighteenth century onwards. Even allowing for Tim's only 40% for heads of household, it means that there is a very good chance that the head of a neighbouring household was not illiterate. Add to this the number of children and wives that could write, I would suggest that most forms were filled in before the enumerator collected them. Peter Park. Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK. This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology