How reliable are certificates do you think?

[sallysmum]

I'm coming round to your thinking, Sorcha.  Great grandfather lists his age and his father with occupation on his marriage cert.  I cannot find either of them on the 1851/61/71 census.  I cannot find him on BMD either - the 4 or 5 certs I've sent off for are not him.  He is proving to be a wiley character!

To confuse matters further, he maybe a Stuart or Stewart!

I believe though that the work one does to unravel the mysteries enlightens as one has to have a very open mind to look at all the possibilities.  I took it as read that the info supplied in the marriage cert was correct (afterall, why would anyone in my family lie )  It was a chance remark in another thread I was reading suddenly made me think, perhaps all is not what it seems!

Sallysmum

[Sorcha]

Thanks very much for your input everybody; I was interested in others' experiences and it has encouraged me to look at even certificates with a sceptical eye. For the record, both people signed with an X so I suppose there might have been some interpretation by the registrar.

I suspect the Conell is Connell; whether I'll really find out I don't know. As I've said, this branch of the family have historically proved to be unreliable so my mind is totally open.  I can't find the birth certificate of the child of these two (my grandma x3) because it would seem that the information gleaned from census returns after she was born aren't necessarily reliable. It drives you bonkers honestly, doesn't it?

[AngelaR]

I've found marriage certificates to be particularly unreliable because of the public nature of the signing. If someone was illegitimate and married in a different parish, they could have invented a father to match the surname they used.

On the other hand, if the vicar knew them well, they might well have married under their mother's maiden name because the vicar knew they were illegitimate, whereas they always used their father or stepfather's surname through rest of their lives.

I got a new one the other day - I have lots of relatives where the a wife had died and the chap married her sister. This was illegal throughout the 19th century, so the marriage usually took place somewhere else and then the couple returned to their village and everyone more or less accepted it. However, the vicar of this particular relatives's parish must have been a right stickler. Fanny Beer, died and the husband married her sister  Jane. When it came to the baptism of the children, the parish records say daughter/son of Jane Beer, a single woman although the births are regstered under the married name and they appear as such on the censuses 

Just shows - don't be surprised at anything - people are strange beings 

Angela

[Nick Carver]

I got a birth certificate where the mother's name was given as Isabella Ruice. I did some digging, found no trace of anything similar and queried it with the issuing body. They swore blind that it was correct. A little later I discovered it was actually Isabella Prince. Now you might have thought a little common sense would be applied in transcriptions like looking for a common name before putting down something exotic (as a FreeBMD transcriber, I try to adhere to that principle), but obviously not in this case.

[Koromo]

No, No, No, an X does not necessarily signify illiteracy.

Times were different then and those of working class were not supposed to be able to write as this was considered dangerous to society. In many cases a person would be told to make their mark and would be expected to make a mark not sign.
There have been studies done on literacy and stats show that simple literacy was as high in the late 19th century as it was in the late 20th century.

But, Guy, there would have been a large percentage in the 19th century who really were illiterate, wouldn't there? And there must have been significant numbers who could read (simple literacy?) but could not write, or were not confident enough to sign their name - writing is a totally different skill from reading.

I can certainly understand that showing that you could write (or even read) might cause suspicion amongst fellow workers, and bosses probably felt threatened, too.

Interesting!!
K.

[frenchdressing]

Guy, You've cheered me up a bit. Quite a few of my ancestors were marked as "scholar" on the census and should have learned something at school but signed their marriage certificate or as informant on a death certificate with an X.
What exactly was taught in schools in the 19th century and when did schooling become obligatory?
Pat

[Guy Etchells]

The Education Act of 1880 made education compulsory for 5-10 year olds.

It is very difficult to ascertain literacy levels of the past but the government so concerned at the growth of newspapers (newsheets) that they placed a half-penny tax on them.
Cheers
Guy

[Ruskie]

Is it true that some made a point of being able to sign their own name, even if they were unable to write? Some of the signatures on some of my certificates look pretty shaky, and were not written with a confident hand.
I have family surname changes too - Scorcha, yours with the extra "n" is fairly minor and a very understandable "error".

[indiapaleale]

I now have about 80 certificates and I would say that they are about 99% accurate. (Not counting 7 certs that are not mine.....the price of genealogy... )

Well, yes there are a few spelling errors....to be expected.....but for the most part the certs that I have bought are right on. I have one were the groom used his uncle's name as his dad..but that is because his uncle raised him after his dad died...understandable.

As far as the "scholar" issue on census returns......scholar simply means a child in school. From the research that I have done, the fact that a child was in school had nothing to do with his/her ability to read and write. Girls were taught laundry, sewing, etc. And most boys didn't go to school beyond 12-13 years of age in the 1800s because they were needed to help support the family.

I think that registrars were very careful to record the information that they were given to the best of their ability.