The "deaf, dumb, imbecile" part of the 1911 census

[Ahmed_U]

Hi All,

I was wondering if someone would be able to help me, please. I am tracing the family tree of a very dear friend of mine who is from Canada. Her ancestors emigrated from England. I am looking at the 1911 census, and in the last column (the one where (1)deaf and dumb, (2)blind, (3)lunatic, (4)imbecile, feeble-minded), three members of the family (the head, wife and eldest daughter) have a 'x' in this column. The other kids have nothing in this column.

Can someone please tell me what the 'x' denotes? Does it mean that they had some "disability"? Or does it mean that there was nothing wrong with them? If the latter, why would some have the 'x', and some be left blank? If it means a disability, does it mean that it was none of the (1),(2),(3) and (4), but some other disability?

If 'x' does mean a disability, then I need to think about how I am going to share this information with my friend, as she has a very old mother who might get upset upon finding this out.

I look forward to a reply.

Many thanks

Ahmed

[davidft]

You can not see what is in the last column. It has to be covered up until 2012.

Are you sure the X you mention is in the last column and isn't a mark by the enumerator to show he has checked things?

When the forms were scanned a white card should have been placed over this last column - is there one on your return?

[Ahmed_U]

Hi David,

Many thanks for your reply. It was my mistake, I meant the 1901 census, and not the 1911 census (as you correctly state, the 1911 census has that column covered up).

I am attaching a picture of the column I am talking about. Please let me know what you make of the 'x'?

Thank you.

Ahmed

[Preshous]

Hi Ahmed

In previous census it was usually written under deaf/dumb, blind, lunatic or imbecile what the affliction was. To give you an example my Great grandmother was blind and under the heading just mentioned it was written as blind. I can only assume the x was the lazy way out, not very helpful.

Gary

[davidft]

Hi Ahmed,

Thanks for the copy of the image.

They look like enumerators check marks to me.

All the returns I have seen when someone has a disability the enumerator has written what type of disability - and sometimes none too politely either.

I would assume that there are no disabilities marked for you friends relatives and they are as I said above just check marks.,

Hope that helps

[Gaie]

Hi Ahmed and a warm welcome to Rootschat!  

You had me worried there, all my images of the 1911 census do indeed have that column covered up.

Regarding 'x's in that column in earlier censuses, usually they are enumerator's marks, as David has said, so I wouldn't read too much into them.  Are they all by adults?

Kind regards
Gaie

Added:  Out of 19 of my 1901 census images, all of them have some sort of x, tick or dash in the last column for some or all of the people listed; two people have their disabilities spelled out: "chronic bronchitis" and "lost one leg". 

[Evie]

Hi Ahmed

Welcome from me too.

You could check other families on the page or a few pages either side of your image to see if the enumerator has done the same for others. If not then maybe have a look at the 1891 census to see if there is anything in those columns for the family. However 10 years previous they may not have suffered any disability so not too reliable.

Evie

[Ahmed_U]

Hi Gary, David and Gaie,

Many thanks for your replies.

I do hope this turns out to be an enumerator's mark, and not someone being lazy!

Two of them are adults (37 and 34), and the other is their 14 year old daughter. The 34 year old (wife - great grandmother of my friend whose family tree I am tracing) actually died a few months after the census, and I am waiting for the death certificate to come through from the GRO so that I can find out the cause.
I am also going to try and trace them backwards in other censuses, just to double check to see if they have any disability listed in there (although it is of course very possible that they were fine in 1891 and not in 1901).

Ahmed

[Evie]

Sorry Gaie didn't see your added comment - probably what has happened in this case I suspect

Evie