Genealogy Chat

Question to follow -------patience I`m a slow typist.

I got a marriage cert. today. Grooms signature was as follows. Richard---------X Whiteway. Brides signature was just a normal siganature. Witness 1st, one was: James--------X Cowley. 2nd witness a normal signature. Does this mean that the people with Xs couldn`t write? I dont really care but also both bride and groom gave no age just 'full age' did they not know how old they were or just trying to cheat? Sylvia.

Full age means that the bride and groom should be over 21. Which could mean that they were 21 to 1 million years old or they lied and were under 21. It was up to vicar or registrar to record their age. The only important bit were they adults and didn't need parental consent to marry. X - They might be able to read or write. At Nottm St Mary's most people sign X as it was such a big church that the forms were pre-completed and the vicar just said x here - who would argue with the vicar? Or sometimes the wife could but the groom couldn't so might want to protect his pride so might X even though she could write.

Certainly the older marriage certoificates tend to have only 'full age' - it was not a requirement to specify the age - only that they were over 21. The 'X' almost certainly denotes illiteracy. It would often appear as John His X mark Smith .

Of 'full age' just meant over 21 and was often used in early certs. It's only on later ones that the actual age began to be recorded. Regarding Xs - sometimes I have relatives who are X on some certs and signed on others. I don't know whether its because they were not very literate and preferred to do an X to avoid embarrassment, or whether they just wanted to be quick. nell

Doh,.....I don't know.....I get up to go to the bathroom and when I come back, everyne else has already replied with my answers!!! Merry

Sorry Merry you must have educated us too well!

Another possibility is - my gt gt uncle William Broad signed on certs, but when his Will was drawn up it was signed with an X because he had lost his sight. nell

That's something I hadn't thought of before, Nell.... Merry

Many thanks for your help everyone, I just wonder, if these people were iliterate, who filled in their names for them? And by the way the vicar at this service his name is unreadable.! Sylvia.

I have certs signd with x's as well---the thing is their mother was a school mistress--so why would the kids be illiterate

If they had all 'made their mark', I wouldn't necessarily assume that meant they couldn't write, but if some signed their names and some made their mark, it is most likely that those ones couldn't write. As for who filled in their names, either the vicar or the parish clerk? Kate.

I have a marriage certificate from the 1870s with an X where the bride's signature should be. Stella

Its a shame we have no definites in this research isnt it. Full age could be 21 or 105 OR it could mean under 21. Signing X could mean they are illiterate OR could mean they arent. Funnily enough I was reading one of my family history mags recently and they said the literacy rate - even among the poor - was higher than it is now! So I often think, it was a case of a couple of young people (or old people) nervous in the presence of an 'official', who said 'Put your mark there' and they did it because they felt intimidated by someone of a 'higher' class.

Yes, but in this case, as I said before, if the groom 'made his mark' and the bride actually signed her name, it is much more likely to mean that the groom couldn't actually write his name - what are the chances that he would be intimidated into making his mark and the bride wouldn't?! Kate.

I just meant generally - not this particular couple.

Thank you for all the interesting replies. One thing has struck me about this particular cert: The males-Groom &1st witness are illiterate: The females_Bride & 2nd witness are literate. I wonder if this was common place for females to be more educated than men? Sylvia.

My ancestor Rachel Jones continued to run a dairy business in Victorian London after her husband died and she signed with an X. I've been wondering how anybody could run such a business without being able to read or write - how did she place orders, submit invoices, check her accounts?

Amazing, isnt it Paul? It could be she was ok at figures - in the family mag I was talking about it said that in some areas, they taught the kids the absolute basics just to be good workers. Hence some boys may only be taught to count - because that was important re, no. of animals, sheaves of wheat etc. I guess there was a fear that a population too educated would be more rebellious. I was reading another article about sunday schools and how they began basically to give kids in poor areas like dockland london somewhere to go for a decent meal once a week. Though they also received a basic education. Apparently the government grew so fearful that these 'Sunday Schools' could be teaching the poor to be more questioning and rebellious that the first education act was born to bring education under government control and kids into school. (Shoot me down in flames experts, but thats how I interpreted it!!) If anyone has more info, it would be interesting.

At the risk of sounding like an old fart, I am shocked at the lax methods of modern teaching. I went to a very old-fashioned school in the 60's, but we all adored Miss Stokes our teacher. She would not tolerate spelling mistakes whatever the subject lesson and made us write a word out 20 times if we spelt it wrong. When I asked my daughter's history teacher why she didn't correct spelling mistakes she said 'This was a History lesson, not English.' I think this explains why when we see examples of children's work from 50 years ago or more, the grammar, the spelling and the handwriting are often beautifully perfect.