Genealogy Chat

Would it just have been the sons/daughters of the wealthy, or would bright children from poorer backgrounds have been educated by a benefactor? I've tried googling and not come up with any answers. The earliest reference I can find is the Education Act of 1870. Thanks in advance for any replies. Barbara

That's a good question, Barbara. I wish I knew the answer, lol. I was surprised to find that some ancestors born around 1750-1770 signed the marriage register while their sons born around 1800 didn't sign. But signing their names didn't always mean they could read and write, just that they knew how to write their own name. I look forward to reading the replies to your message. Heather

I'm sure someone with more knowledge will answer, but mine didn't learn much. All their records were signed with their mark. Even those who were recorded as 'scholar' on census on the 1800s. Hubby's lot on the other hand went to some snooty school in the north of Engalnd in the 1600s, and they all went to schools in Bristol in the 1700s and 1800s. Actuall, you just reminded me to find the name of that school again. I found it on Google a while back. I do remember that the school in north, Lancashire or Yorkshire was free. All the teachers were paid by the wealthy townsfolk. I know it was 1600s, could have been earlier. Will check it out now.

I think it would be extremely hit and miss with all sorts of unexpected people getting some sort of rudimentary education and other well off females missing out! One branch of my family lived where the local squire believed in education (to a low level) for all and so all my rellies there seem to have been able to read and write. My Quaker rellies could r & w - women too. Merry

Heather I've had the same sort of pattern of some earlier marriage certs being signed, while some later ones only have 'his/her mark' but what really made me wonder was when I came across an ancestor being appointed as Parish Clerk in the mid 1700's. I mean - he must have been able to read and write! Barbara

There was no nationwide system of education before 1870 BUT! I have been astonished by the number of my early ancestors who could at least write their own name. In the village of Gawsworth in Cheshire for instance, where my ancestors have been since at least the 1400s, I was intrigued to see in the Parish Register, mention of a free school, which had been founded by a local benefactor in the early 1700s 'for the benefit of all in this Parish'. I cannot find anymore, other than passing references to monies paid to this school, but it is obvious from the marriage registers at least, that just about everyone in that village could write their name, in neat script. Another branch of my family, from Darwen in Lancs, benefitted from a Weavers School, which was set up in a cottage by a local weaver in the early 1700s.He taught the children AND adults to read, but not to write. This was so that they could read and understand the Holy Scriptures for themselves, something which the Church of England strongly discouraged. He was a non-conformist and often got into trouble with the local authorities for his activities. I think overall that far more ordinary people could read and write, to a certain extent, than we imagine. Many humble people would conceal the fact from their 'betters'. The middle and upper classes AND the Church, did not want the working classes to be literate, because a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the poor might start questioning their station in life - which is ultimately what happened, of course. OC

A little writing often went with a person's job. Many people learned to read a little just from observation and no education as such. Merry

Elizabeth, Merry and OC Thank you very much for your comments- thought provokng as always. And here was me thinking 'is this a daft question with an obvious answer?' Barbara

Some of my ancestors in Northants had a lace school where they taught the local children to make lace.They also taught them to read and write,this was in the 1700's up until the mid-18o00's when the village school was built.

Wendy It seems to be pretty common really, to run these unofficial schools particularly amongst non-conformists, which most weavers were. OC

I have letters written by my g grandfather's first wife in 1842/3. He was just a bricklayer and her siblings domestic servants. I was amazed at the script, gammar and language of them. I know they were Methodists and wondered if Sunday Schools may have played a part in working class education? Anne Ah - I see OC has partly answered my point!!!!

1700s I would imagine only fairly well to do people would be educated. People who could read and write might teach their children at home,but most working class children - however bright - would be off earning a living doing labouring or skivvying by the age of about 10. Very bright kids who came to the attention of a wealthy benefactor or patron might be educated. But what need would the average person have to write? No income tax forms to fill in, only a marriage cert to put X to. No census to complete, no credit card applications, no Christmas cards....

Nell Perhaps not much need to write, but plenty of need to read, I think. Until very recently, education has been seen by all sections of society as the way to advancement. I dare say that poor people in the 1700s knew this too! In the same PR that I refer to above, was a list of all the village men who signed the Oath of Allegience. All but a handful signed their names and even the ones who didnt write their names, did the most amazing 'marks' - no simple X, but elaborate lines with sworls and carefully placed dots. I may be being fanciful here, but wondered if these were craftsmen, maybe carpenters etc, and this was how they customarily signed their work. OC

I don't think there would be too much around for general reading - (books were very expensive) but many middle class and tradesmen wrote letters, bills etc. My Quaker lot could all read and write, but they were in trade. However, I assume their parents taught them, as one left a brief autobiography and stated that father was in reduced circumstances and couldn't afford to send them to school. Yet he became a collector of books and other objects and opened a private museum. All his exhibits had annotated labels stuck on them. It is difficult for us to know exactly who could write, other than their name, as much possible evidence may not have survived. Jay

As well as 'proper' books, though, there were cheap books of the throwaway kind during the nineteenth century and maybe a little earlier. Also, there were newspapers and newsheets, notices, leaflets, religious tracts... I'd imagine that many people couldn't read at all, a fair few could, and most fell somewhere between the two.

There was an article a while back in the Norfolk Roots mag about this subject. Basically saying that we should not be surprised that our early ancestors could indeed write and read - even if only a bit! The local squire/Lord of the Manor or his benevolent missus would often arranged classes for the kids of their ag labs etc. It was in fact quite important these kids could read and write a bit and count. If you sent them off to gather say, a hundredweight of potatoes, they would have needed to work out the weights etc. If you wanted 17 lambs brought in to market, again they would need to be able to count these off. So, may be they could write and read very little but just enough to actually perform their duties efficiently.

I thought this thread had 'died' yesterday! Thank you all for the illuminating replies. Barbara