RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Roobarb on Wednesday 03 September 08 22:09 BST (UK)
-
Have I got here first? Can't see the topic anwhere else but I'm sure it will be merged if someone has beat me to it!
I thought tonight's episode was a bit odd, Esther was laughing uproariously at the news that her ancestor absconded when he was wanted by the police, while saying that she was horrified. The whole thing seemed quite strange to me.
-
Not sure the programme was all that odd, just the subject.
I did find the tears at the end a little strange too. Interesting though.
-
I just wish they would all stop crying. This site would drown if we all wept at our discoveries.
I agree, it was ok, but not exactly gripping stuff.
-
I thought it was very interesting.
Esther's reactions did somewhat puzzle me. I felt sorry for the man at the police museum who seemed to be getting into trouble for digging the dirt on the family killer/fraudster. One thing that did annoy me (not only about this episode) is the fact that we never find out what happened to the people unless they died tragically, died a hero, or were murdered. I would love to have known how long the 82 year old's marriage lasted. These are the little sad things that take my attention. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult to find a death record just to conclude things.
Other than that, it was a very entertaining episode.
-
Must admit that I was rather distracted by Esther's appearance. She looked as if she's had some cosmetic procedure in certain area of her face but not in others. I'm all for looking good but as well as the programme seeming quite odd to me, Esther's appearance did too!
Loved the pink handbag though! (Sorry fellas, it's a girlie thing!) (http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Others/others-036.gif)
-
Whilst she seemed convincing - in that everything seemed a great surprise- it did seem odd that the source of the family's wealth was not known.
I am such a sad person that I looked up the Barney Barnarto person - quite a bit about him including an interesting article by Scilla Rantzen (sister) where the relationship between Barnarto and her grandmother Sarah Isaac is established.
She does however support the lack of knowledge of any inheritance from him and obviously the programme explored the connection much more because of the vast sums of money acquired by this chap.
It has tainted the programme slightly for me because I think there was prior knowledge.
I also hate to say it but I did groan a bit when the Warsaw ghetto was again explored. I do think it is something we should keep in mind but it was as though it was obligatory even though it was 100 yrs after Esther's ancestors left.
Not a particularly memorable programme really. T reiterate last week's debate, I would say that this fell more into the 'entertainment' category but not much else.
heywood
-
Oops sorry Glen- I just posted and realised afterwards that we had referred to same article. ::)
That article is worth reading though, isn't it. Did she write that lafter the programme was recorded ? i couldn't find a date. I may be being quite harsh then. :(
-
I have been down a similar street in Warsaw [could have been the same one]
sex shop,sex shop,sex shop,sex shop,bakery,sex shop,sex shop.
Interesting episode.
-
OOH.. looking forward to Ainsley Harriot next week,
things can only get better ::)
-
Having read all these comments I am now not SO disappointed that the "box" failed to record it for me last night. Was a bit mad at the time!
I will still look out for the repeat, but at least I know I didnt miss a classic.
-
I just wish they would all stop crying.
It's become obligatory. Sheila Hancock started it all, if I remember rightly.
Jennifer
-
Having read all these comments I am now not SO disappointed that the "box" failed to record it for me last night. Was a bit mad at the time!
I will still look out for the repeat, but at least I know I didnt miss a classic.
Repeated tonight on BBC2 at 6 ish?
I'm looking forward to Ainsley too ;)
Carol
-
I was disappointed they didn't try to find out more about Montague Leverson's sojourn in the US. They found an entry on the 1880 (yes I just looked at it) where he is living with a 39-year-old widow whose youngest is a mere 5 years old. There might be some American cousins she didn't know about! Needs a look on the 1870, pity the 1890 is missing.
I agree about the Warsaw 1945 events mention. Last week on the Jerry Springer episode, the fate of his grandmothers, especially the one from the Lodz ghetto who died at Chelm, was highly relevant and very moving. This week's reference was a bit tenuous.
Chris
-
Absolutely fascinating ! Related to the richest man in England (at the time) ? Just shows that you can come from poverty and make it.
-
I recall that she was very interested (for the duration of the programme at least) in finding where the Rantzen side came from, but did she have any interest in the other side of her family at all (where they originated) ?
I just found her rather false.
Was very amused when she welcomed (rather stiffly, I thought) the "old lady" into her home then it was revealed that this was her sister! ;D ;D ;D
I guess surgery only works on your own face, not that of your peers ::) ;D ;D ;D
-
I guess surgery only works on your own face, not that of your peers ::) ;D ;D ;D
Lovely!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well it was interesting at first about the Grandfather but I had to laugh at her horror that she had someone like that in HER family. For goodness sake how many of us have found the odd jail sentence in our searches? I am sure there are plenty of us here that have.
The other thing that annoyed was her strolling past each gap in the street when she was on her way to meet someone - those shoes and handbag!! She does tend to like pink doesn't she?
I was also expecting her to say how proud she was of her family but to hear about survivors guilt threw me a bit there.
Not as good a programme as I was expecting but entertaining nonetheless - if only watching her reactions to everything
Oh and by the way - the whole family is on GR as well - had to check it out just to see lol
-
I must also echo what was said about the mention of the Warsaw Ghetto rising...in the context of this episode and Esther's family history, it was completely irrelevant. It strikes me that whenever they research someone with Jewish ancestry, there's an unspoken rule that they must shoehorn a mention about the Nazis in there somewhere.
Don't get me wrong, what happened during those years was a tremendous horror and something that should never be forgotten, but forcing a mention in when you're discussing events from a century before is just completely ridiculous. Family history (and indeed all history) has to be seated in the correct historical context, which the findings in this episode were not. Surely it would have been more relevant to discuss something such as the 1863 January Uprising or the earlier 1830 November Rising against Russian rule, for example - events that were going on around the time Esther's ancestors left Poland?
But then when she acted so surprised about her ancestors being involved in diamonds. Why? Did she think her grandparents picked the middle name Barnato for the sheer fun of it? It just struck me as entirely false.
-
I must also echo what was said about the mention of the Warsaw Ghetto rising...in the context of this episode and Esther's family history, it was completely irrelevant. It strikes me that whenever they research someone with Jewish ancestry, there's an unspoken rule that they must shoehorn a mention about the Nazis in there somewhere.
What absolute rubbish ! ::)
What moved Ms Rantzen to tears was that she had lived a life of relative luxury, whilst some of her ancestors were not so lucky. What were the producers of the show supposed to do to to explain the total lack of buildings in the area of Poland where her ancestors came from ? Make something up ? Or just ignore it ? She appeared to be weeping tears of both joy and guilt, IMHO.
-
Quite the most full of the entire series so far. False reactions, a ridiculous reference to Warsaw Uprising - I agree it was too far out of context.
I am an Israel sympathizer but we have had this topic when it was justified. Not everything can be about the Nazis.
The research was flimsy and sometimes very basic. :-\
-
I found it interesting enough, but how I wish Esther hadn't giggled her way through it so much. I was rather taken aback that she hadn't known about her Polish connections. Cuthie
-
Quite the most full of the entire series so far. False reactions, a ridiculous reference to Warsaw Uprising - I agree it was too far out of context.
I am an Israel sympathizer but we have had this topic when it was justified. Not everything can be about the Nazis.
The research was flimsy and sometimes very basic. :-\
In just about every programme that WDYTYA have made, they have attempted to take people to the area where their ancestors originated, and to the house when it is still standing. They did it with Ms Rantzen in Queens Square, London. They also did it this time in Poland, and found a huge area which had been obviously obliterated by something, and that something was explained. It has absolutely nothing to do with being an "Israel sympathiser". I am not Jewish, and I have no sympathy for the modern state of Israel, but when facts are there and relevant (and this was relevant), then they should be reported.
-
I see this thread is going the way of the Boris J. one ..... personal remarks about the subject's looks or clothing really dont add to the discussion . :(
Must admit that I was rather distracted by Esther's appearance. She looked as if she's had some cosmetic procedure in certain area of her face but not in others. I'm all for looking good but as well as the programme seeming quite odd to me, Esther's appearance did too!
Loved the pink handbag though! (Sorry fellas, it's a girlie thing!)
The other thing that annoyed was her strolling past each gap in the street when she was on her way to meet someone - those shoes and handbag!! She does tend to like pink doesn't she?
For goodness sake - and who are we to judge her reactions ?
-
Was very amused when she welcomed (rather stiffly, I thought) the "old lady" into her home then it was revealed that this was her sister! ;D ;D ;D
......And the best bit is that her sister is actually three years younger than her !!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I did not find Esther particuarly engaging, not that I was ever a fan of 'That's Life' anyway.
Nonetheless, I did find parts of the programme quite interesting for purely personal reasons. My Jewish ggf (and his christian wife) were in South Africa and Jo'burg at the same time as Barnato. When they returned to London in 1896, they lived in Sutherland Avenue.
However, I have to agree with the majority of postings that the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto was not directly relevant. There was no suggestion that other branches of the Rantzen family were still in Warsaw 80 or 90 years after her ancestors had emigrated. And after that passage of time, the old house would have been ready for destruction anyway. Esther's claim to feel survivor's guilt belittled the very real emotions felt by those that did live through and genuinely survive those times.
Justin
-
I see this thread is going the way of the Boris J. one ..... personal remarks about the subject's looks or clothing really dont add to the discussion . :(
Must admit that I was rather distracted by Esther's appearance. She looked as if she's had some cosmetic procedure in certain area of her face but not in others. I'm all for looking good but as well as the programme seeming quite odd to me, Esther's appearance did too!
Loved the pink handbag though! (Sorry fellas, it's a girlie thing!)
The other thing that annoyed was her strolling past each gap in the street when she was on her way to meet someone - those shoes and handbag!! She does tend to like pink doesn't she?
For goodness sake - and who are we to judge her reactions ?
Those things were all part of the programme and as I said, distracted me from the content. This post was moved from The Common Room to The Lighter Side and that's what these comments were - light. Having a discussion doesn't mean it all has to be as dry as dust.
-
I am such a sad person that I looked up the Barney Barnarto person - quite a bit about him including an interesting article by Scilla Rantzen (sister) where the relationship between Barnarto and her grandmother Sarah Isaac is established.
She does however support the lack of knowledge of any inheritance from him and obviously the programme explored the connection much more because of the vast sums of money acquired by this chap.
It has tainted the programme slightly for me because I think there was prior knowledge.
I was involved a little helping with some research for this programme. It was made last summer (2007) and nothing was easily available then connecting the Rantzens to the Barnatos. Scilla must have used the information her sister found out when making the programme to write her article, it certainly wasn't the other way around.
-
Having a discussion doesn't mean it all has to be as dry as dust
I would doubt if Esther would consider them light. They are personal and dont add to the topic.
You can lighten up the discussion in so many ways ....
-
Just found that Constance Otto's husband Charles was still alive on the 1871 so Montague Leverson not necessarily a suspect as the father of any of her children. Odd that he was neither a boarder nor lodger in 1880, just undefined.
No sign of him in 1870 nor (unsurprisingly) in the 1890 fragment. He was however on the 1900 I think as Montague K Leverson in Brooklyn, New York described as Physician which is odd, but born England 1830 which is right - original could be R. In 1910 I found him twice! Lodger in the Bronx, New York, boarder in Atlanta Georgia. Details correct both times, down to "Own Income" under Occupation. Perhaps the census was carried out over a few days and he was counted twice, perhaps counted both where he actually was and at his usual abode - I've a couple of examples of this in my own tree. In all three entries he is Widower.
Only England census I see him on is the 1851 still at home, not long after that unfortunate incident with the shotgun.
Chris
-
I am such a sad person that I looked up the Barney Barnarto person - quite a bit about him including an interesting article by Scilla Rantzen (sister) where the relationship between Barnarto and her grandmother Sarah Isaac is established.
She does however support the lack of knowledge of any inheritance from him and obviously the programme explored the connection much more because of the vast sums of money acquired by this chap.
It has tainted the programme slightly for me because I think there was prior knowledge.
I was involved a little helping with some research for this programme. It was made last summer (2007) and nothing was easily available then connecting the Rantzens to the Barnatos. Scilla must have used the information her sister found out when making the programme to write her article, it certainly wasn't the other way around.
That's very interesting Sue, can't say I blame Scilla for using the information though! Helping with the research must have been interesting too, there must be such an enormous amount of work behind the scenes to come up with the information. Well done!
-
I was involved a little helping with some research for this programme. It was made last summer (2007) and nothing was easily available then connecting the Rantzens to the Barnatos. Scilla must have used the information her sister found out when making the programme to write her article, it certainly wasn't the other way around.
Scilla's article is interesting as she quotes other sources and of the parts of Esther's history which was revealed, I think the diamond connection was the most interesting- as has already been said- poverty to absolute riches makes a good story. :) and I always find the social aspects really captivating.
However, just using the internet and looking the Barnatos up does give his real name of Barnett Isaac. Looking up Esther's family reveals Sarah Isaac. I think if we were researching, at this point the bells would be ringing. It does look an easy connection just using census resources.
Disappointed is too strong a word, but I would have thought that the two sisters would have attempted to make the connection earlier than this - but we're not all the same ::)
-
Hi Chris
Long time no speak! Hope you're well.
I was just looking back through my info re my Gt Grandmother Mabel Skelcey born 1899, and was wondering if you knew what happened to her two older sisters Lucy and Daisy. They do not appear in the 1901 census.
Clive
-
Hi Clive - go to the Skelcey/Skelcher thread on Warwickshire boards. Chris
-
I must also echo what was said about the mention of the Warsaw Ghetto rising...in the context of this episode and Esther's family history, it was completely irrelevant. It strikes me that whenever they research someone with Jewish ancestry, there's an unspoken rule that they must shoehorn a mention about the Nazis in there somewhere.
What absolute rubbish ! ::)
What moved Ms Rantzen to tears was that she had lived a life of relative luxury, whilst some of her ancestors were not so lucky. What were the producers of the show supposed to do to to explain the total lack of buildings in the area of Poland where her ancestors came from ? Make something up ? Or just ignore it ? She appeared to be weeping tears of both joy and guilt, IMHO.
What absolute rubbish!
There was no need for that scene to be included. At the end of the day, it was a carpark with very little significance to the programme. As they said, nothing existed of the original site.
As for the survivor guilt claim - that was very cringeworthy. Her ancestors shipped themselves out of the place almost 100 years before the place was flattend by the Nazis. Looks like she survived by the skin of her teeth... ::)
-
Am I the only one on RC who thinks these programmes are absolute dross? And they send out all the wrong signals to would be family historians showing them 'how easy' it all is to do family history, when its all be researched prior to the show.
-
Hi everyone,
Very mixed comments on this edition - I found it completely unabsorbing and felt it was contrived. From what as been said so far it appears it is likely it was contrived - possibly the best of the rejects for this series ?!!!!!!!!!!!!
I too am looking forward to Ainsley, from the write ups I've read it looks interesting.
-
I am such a sad person that I looked up the Barney Barnarto person - quite a bit about him including an interesting article by Scilla Rantzen (sister) where the relationship between Barnarto and her grandmother Sarah Isaac is established.
She does however support the lack of knowledge of any inheritance from him and obviously the programme explored the connection much more because of the vast sums of money acquired by this chap.
It has tainted the programme slightly for me because I think there was prior knowledge.
I was involved a little helping with some research for this programme. It was made last summer (2007) and nothing was easily available then connecting the Rantzens to the Barnatos. Scilla must have used the information her sister found out when making the programme to write her article, it certainly wasn't the other way around.
This and other posts show it wasnt contrived...... reading some of the opinions onm here makes me wonder if I watched a different programme ::)
Dross ? Wrong signals ? For goodness sake see it in the spirit its made and offered.
-
It was fairly interesting, but not engrossing. I, too, thought the Warsaw bit was unnecessary. As I said to my OH, if her ancestors hadn't moved out, even if they'd survived whatever was going on at the time or later, she wouldn't have been born, because her other ancestors were already in London!
I mentioned under the J.Springer thread, that I thought the BBC seemed to be choosing celebrities who had a Jewish connection, because there would be some kind of history to weave into the programme.
I'd like more people like Barbara Windsor or Jeremy Paxman, showing the social history of what would have been the norm for ancestors of most of us.
Lizzie
-
Am I the only one on RC who thinks these programmes are absolute dross?
I woudn't go as far as to say that they are dross. I find them all fairly interesting but I do think they send out rather the wrong signals as far as family history is concerned.
I also find them increasingly formulaic.
We have the usual fit of weeping (although given the extremely harrowing context I exclude Gerry Springer from this criticism) and in nearly every episode now we seem to have a dramatic telephone call, informing the subject of a sudden and important 'discovery'.
Jennifer
-
I will still look out for the repeat, but at least I know I didnt miss a classic.
isn't it on bbc 2 now (6pm?)
i thought Esther was rather aloof
she didnt come across as she really wanted to know about anything she didnt take the time to actually look at the certificates or she would have known who Sarah Isaacs was when they sad about Barnett being her brother.
what is a shame is that all the address' relevant to her past have been destroyed one way or another
-
... and in nearly every episode now we seem to have a dramatic telephone call, informing the subject of a sudden and important 'discovery'.
... with the cameraman conveniently being there at the time! ;)
I'd agree with those that thought that the Ghetto uprising was unnecessary. It's bit like adding a secton on the Blitz for someone who left London in the 1900's. The Ranzens fled the Imperial Russians, not the Nazis.
Let's hope the series will concentrate on new areas of social history now. It would be nice to have a bit more on the "how to", but I guess that's too much to expect! :)
meles
-
Like all TV companies the BBC is chasing ratings. If they were making the sort of programme we'd like to see, they'd feature non-celebrities, show the research properly with no histrionics, and tuck it away on BBC2 or even BBC4 late at night. So for BBC1 prime time they use celebs, to bring in an audience that might be more interested in the celeb than the genealogy, and they get the ratings.
Some of the celebs act in a refreshingly normal way, others act the part with the over-dramatisation - it's almost as if they think we expect it of them. I agree about the sudden revelation tactic, this seems to be fairly new. Perhaps orders from above. I for one enjoyed the Robert Lindsay episode, for example, but I can see that it might not have been interesting enough for some.
I wonder if they've investigated some celeb or other whose background has been considered too boring to be worthy of an episode? Would we find out about it if they did that?
Chris
-
The one with Kevin Whately has been filmed but not broadcast (well, yet). He says "They stood me on the end of North Shields Fish Quay trying to make me cry, but I wouldn't".
meles
-
I found Esther Rantzens whole attitude very strange particularly after Jerry Springer last week, when he was reliving the terrible fate of his grandmothers, and genuinely grieving for them.
I feel she was frivolous and insincere and I hope the rest of the series concentrates on people with a genuine interest in their forebears and not the paypacket at the end. At least with Ainsley we can be sure of an honest programme.
-
Having read all these comments I am now not SO disappointed that the "box" failed to record it for me last night. Was a bit mad at the time!
I will still look out for the repeat, but at least I know I didnt miss a classic.
You can also watch it on your pc via BBC i player within the next seven days
Julie x
-
so all the Rantzens in Britian are related to Esther ?
i think all the Wojciechowskyj in Britain are related to me,
i wish i could go to Kyiv like she went to Warsaw and have someone lay out all the information for me i just had to peice it together
-
... with the cameraman conveniently being there at the time! ;)
Ooh what a cynic you are ;D
The one with Kevin Whately has been filmed but not broadcast (well, yet). He says "They stood me on the end of North Shields Fish Quay trying to make me cry, but I wouldn't".
I shall look forward to that. Let us hope he doesn't get the dramatic 'phone call either ;D
Jennifer
-
I'd like more people like Barbara Windsor or Jeremy Paxman, showing the social history of what would have been the norm for ancestors of most of us.
Lizzie
I'd like more of this too.
On nearly every programme, there's a train journey as well. Watch for it!
-
On nearly every programme, there's a train journey as well. Watch for it!
And a taxi ride ;D I shall start to make a checklist for the next programme ;)
-
I've only seen a few of these. Have they done one with ag labs yet? ;D
-
No. Apparently they're not interesting. So that's 90% of my family dismissed... :-\
meles
-
I've only seen a few of these. Have they done one with ag labs yet? ;D
They've go no imagination, that's what!
-
i wish i could go to Kyiv like she went to Warsaw and have someone lay out all the information for me i just had to peice it together
You should go anyway, its such a wonderful city. I lived there for far too short a time when I was younger and I still think of it with utter affection. The Kreshchatik, Pecherski monastry, St Sofia, St Andrews church, the Podol, October Revolution Square (now renamed), vodka and champagne... aah, the memories!
Unfortunately, like most of the Ukraine, it was heavily damaged in WW2 when the Germans attacked. They are not particulary fondly regarded by the older Kievans. I was nearly attacked by an old gent on the trolley bus who sat calling me horrible names and swearing profusely at me because he thought I was German!
Glen
-
Glen do you speak Ukrainian then?
-
I had a wonderful holiday in Ukraine this year, Glen. I was bowled over, particularly by Kiev.
meles
-
On nearly every programme, there's a train journey as well. Watch for it!
And a taxi ride ;D I shall start to make a checklist for the next programme ;)
And tram rides when in Poland and (I think) Germany - to say "Hey! We're Abroad" to those who haven't been paying attention.
-
Glen do you speak Ukrainian then?
Not any more, I just know a few words here and there. I've forgotten most of the Russian I learnt as well, much to my shame! :-[
Its not a dissimilar language to Russian but with a softer, more melodic sound, without so much of the gutturality. The two peoples could communicate quite well I think, and I was always quite surprised to ask a question in Russian and then get the answer back in flowery Ukrainian!
I had a wonderful holiday in Ukraine this year, Glen. I was bowled over, particularly by Kiev.
meles
Yep, it'll probably always be my favouritist country after Sussex (the rest of England, is okay I suppose, but I wouldn't want to live there! ;D)
Glen
-
;D ;D ;D
-
It wasn't the most wonderful episode ever, but like them all it had its interesting moments.
My OH had a crooked solicitor in the family - I'd like to know who had suffered through Esther's gt grandfathers actions. In our case the ancestor's victims were often ordinary people with a little cash to invest to support themselves in the days before the Welfare State. Financial crimes DO have victims. The OH's ancestor was sentenced to life in prison and died there. I can't remember off hand, but until the second half of the C19th fraud was still a capitol offense.
Carole
-
Montague Leverson ... was however on the 1900 I think as Montague K Leverson in Brooklyn, New York described as Physician which is odd, but born England 1830 which is right - original could be R.
On the marriage certificate that Esther was looking at from when Montague was 82 years old, under occupation it said 'Doctor of Medicine', which nobody commented on at all. How did he go from being a solicitor to being a doctor? Was he actually qualified? I'd have been very interested to find out more about that.
-
Montague Leverson ... was however on the 1900 I think as Montague K Leverson in Brooklyn, New York described as Physician which is odd, but born England 1830 which is right - original could be R.
On the marriage certificate that Esther was looking at from when Montague was 82 years old, under occupation it said 'Doctor of Medicine', which nobody commented on at all. How did he go from being a solicitor to being a doctor? Was he actually qualified? I'd have been very interested to find out more about that.
I saw that too.
-
A few minutes on Google brought up much interesting material on Esther's great-grandfather Montague Leverson. He worked as a patent agent, wrote a textbook on copyright, and as a solicitor one of his articled clerks was Charles Bradlaugh, the first atheist MP in the British House of Commons. In the USA, he seems to have had a very colourful life, and eventually he became a medical doctor, with a connection to the Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore. He lived until the age of 95. One of his daughters was the mother of composer Gerald Finzi. In a recent biography of Finzi (Diana McVeagh's Gerald Finzi: His Life and Work, there's a footnote mentioning that one of Leverson's sons was Esther Rantzen's grandfather (Esther mentions this in an article in yesterday's Daily Mail, so I suspect that much of her family history on her mother's side was known to her already).
These programmes are obviously fully researched before the subject is filmed, and are presented in a slightly artificial way. This week's programme seemed to be more artificial than most. I thought that an opportunity was lost to examine more closely the different Jewish communities of 19th century London, as the Leverson side of the family was clearly comfortably off at a time when the Rantzen side was just beginning to emerge from poverty.
-
These programmes are obviously fully researched before the subject is filmed, and are presented in a slightly artificial way. This week's programme seemed to be more artificial than most. I thought that an opportunity was lost to examine more closely the different Jewish communities of 19th century London, as the Leverson side of the family was clearly comfortably off at a time when the Rantzen side was just beginning to emerge from poverty.
I agree entirely and after the research the programme makers must decide on what they think the public would find most iattractive etc. The accumulation of such wealth through diamonds - the biggest cheque ever written etc is a good story line and as we have said before they can't show everything.
I do think it's interesting but as others say perhaps misleading that those records are so 'readily' available when the celebrities travel abroad.
-
A few minutes on Google brought up much interesting material on Esther's great-grandfather Montague Leverson. He worked as a patent agent, wrote a textbook on copyright, and as a solicitor one of his articled clerks was Charles Bradlaugh, the first atheist MP in the British House of Commons. In the USA, he seems to have had a very colourful life, and eventually he became a medical doctor, with a connection to the Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore. He lived until the age of 95.
I should have thought of Googling. There are dozens of references to Montague. Among the most interesting are his involvement in the Lincoln County Wars in the then Wild West (Billy the Kid and all that) and his publication of a primer on Morals! One source names him as friend of president Hayes, though I think he just corresponded with him. His name also appears in an unfathomable poem by Ambrose Bierce. There's a book about him still to be written!
If he had been featured more fully, the program would have been more about him than Esther - and they had to get Barney Barnato in too. Esther in her Daily Mail article dismissed his output as some boring pamphlets, but that depends on your point of view. His biography of the man who (wrongly) opposed Pasteur's theories turns up a lot in the search, and his argument against the teaching of classics in favour of sciences sounds quite modern.
Not only did he remarry at the age of 83, he took his new wife back to the US (found in Ellis Island records). He was 92 or nearly when he became a British citizen again.
-
Montague Leverson ... was however on the 1900 I think as Montague K Leverson in Brooklyn, New York described as Physician which is odd, but born England 1830 which is right - original could be R.
On the marriage certificate that Esther was looking at from when Montague was 82 years old, under occupation it said 'Doctor of Medicine', which nobody commented on at all. How did he go from being a solicitor to being a doctor? Was he actually qualified? I'd have been very interested to find out more about that.
i noticed that ?......
Wish they would cover all the facts written on the documents.
Debz
-
What absolute rubbish ! ::)
What moved Ms Rantzen to tears was that she had lived a life of relative luxury, whilst some of her ancestors were not so lucky. What were the producers of the show supposed to do to to explain the total lack of buildings in the area of Poland where her ancestors came from ? Make something up ? Or just ignore it ? She appeared to be weeping tears of both joy and guilt, IMHO.
As has already been mentioned, should people whose ancestors left London in the 1850s write about the Blitz when discussing them? Making a point about what happened a century after the family you're discussing left an area is not especially relevant when discussing someone's life, and doesn't really tell you anything about how that person lived or the circumstances that affected them in everyday life. As has been said, it would have been more relevant to discuss the events going on at that time involving Polish "resistance" to Russian imperialism and persecution...these were, after all, the things that would have had an impact upon the lives of these people and in the context of this episode would have been far more relevant given that it could have given a better understanding of the circumstances they left behind. Surely that is what this episode was about...discussing the lives and times of Esther's ancestors?
-
..... As has already been mentioned, should people whose ancestors left London in the 1850s write about the Blitz when discussing them? Making a point about what happened a century after the family you're discussing left an area is not especially relevant when discussing someone's life.........
Only two of Ms Rantzens family left that area, and I'm sure she was acutely aware that there were many more of her family left behind whose descendants may well have suffered when the Nazis did these appalling things. So, in my mind, it was relevant - I would be very sad to think that this was the spot where members of my family may have died, even though they were not in my immediate line of descent.
-
These programmes are obviously fully researched before the subject is filmed, and are presented in a slightly artificial way. This week's programme seemed to be more artificial than most.
I think this is unavoidable. Think about it, if you were a celebrity and you were approached by a TV film company, wanting to research your ancestors and broadcast the results to the nation, I'm pretty sure that you would insist on seeing what they had found before it was broadcast. Apparently Patsy Kensit wanted to pull out of the show when another of her ancestors was found to have a shady past, but she was persuaded to carry on with it.
The alternative would be to just present the person's ancestral file, without any involvement with the celebrity themselves, and although I'm sure that whilst most Roots Chatters would find that fascinating, the rest of the population would find it as riveting as watching paint dry. So, what has to happen is that the celebs take part, and they do know in advance most of what's going to happen, and they look surprised for effect.
It's still a good show, despite its shortcomings :)
-
I found Esther Rantzens whole attitude very strange particularly after Jerry Springer last week, when he was reliving the terrible fate of his grandmothers, and genuinely grieving for them.
I feel she was frivolous and insincere and I hope the rest of the series concentrates on people with a genuine interest in their forebears and not the paypacket at the end. At least with Ainsley we can be sure of an honest programme.
Glad I am not the only one who thought that Ester Rantzen is a drama queen!
Up to now most of the programmes have been very good, but another one like that, and I will not watch it at all.
Some have been really good, so I suppose that there had to be a one that was over dramatised!
Rabbit B ::)
-
Mr Montague Leverson would merit a programme to himself. He appears many times in The Times. He was onboard, as the company's solicitor, when the Great Eastern suffered an explosion during her sea trials in 1859 and several stokers were killed and then represented the company at the inquest. Charles Bradlaugh appears to have been with the firm at the time Montague scarpered to America.
He also crops up a lot on Google Books - an interesting character.... one I can't help thinking, that during her That's Life days Esther would have been keen to investigate!
Carole
-
Have always enjoyed the series even if some episodes have been less interesting than others.Really looking forward to the one with David Suchet!Often wonder what people would think if MY family was explored on film! Hopefully the researchers would be able to find things that I have so far been unable to!
-
These programmes are obviously fully researched before the subject is filmed, and are presented in a slightly artificial way. This week's programme seemed to be more artificial than most.
I think this is unavoidable. Think about it, if you were a celebrity and you were approached by a TV film company, wanting to research your ancestors and broadcast the results to the nation, I'm pretty sure that you would insist on seeing what they had found before it was broadcast. Apparently Patsy Kensit wanted to pull out of the show when another of her ancestors was found to have a shady past, but she was persuaded to carry on with it.
This just isn't true. When I did a bit of research on this film it was made very clear to me that the golden rule was that the celebs are told nothing until they made the discovery on camera. Of course it's all researched behind the scenes beforehand. We all know how much work goes into researching our own family history, so do you really expect a camera crew to follow Esther Rantzen round for months and months while she goes down endless blind alleys? She certainly wouldn't have the time anyway. And would you really want to sit down and watch someone searching for hours online for the one census entry that's relevant to them?
The point of the programme is that they filter out all the boring bits and lead the celebs to the gold nuggets for them to discover for the first time when being filmed. Do you really think when Paxman cried it was all an act? If it was then the man should be an oscar winning actor rather than on Newsnight.
I read what Patsy Kensit said about pulling out. She said she wanted to pull out during filming when she discovered her grandfather was also a crook. If she'd been told beforehand they wouldn't have started filming at all.
-
Montague Leverson ... was however on the 1900 I think as Montague K Leverson in Brooklyn, New York described as Physician which is odd, but born England 1830 which is right - original could be R.
On the marriage certificate that Esther was looking at from when Montague was 82 years old, under occupation it said 'Doctor of Medicine', which nobody commented on at all. How did he go from being a solicitor to being a doctor? Was he actually qualified? I'd have been very interested to find out more about that.
i noticed that ?......
Wish they would cover all the facts written on the documents.
Debz
If you go to the WDYTYA web site there are several clips of unshown footage - for esther rantzen there are two clips - one of those clips is where she discovers that Montague did in fact qualify as a doctor from Baltimore College of Medicine
-
This just isn't true. When I did a bit of research on this film it was made very clear to me that the golden rule was that the celebs are told nothing until they made the discovery on camera. Of course it's all researched behind the scenes beforehand.
Many thanks for this and your previous posting.
Sadly, it seems many people just read the title and not even the last post before presenting their subjective opinions.
-
This just isn't true. When I did a bit of research on this film it was made very clear to me that the golden rule was that the celebs are told nothing until they made the discovery on camera. Of course it's all researched behind the scenes beforehand.
Many thanks for this and your previous posting.
Sadly, it seems many people just read the title and not even the last post before presenting their subjective opinions.
"Some people" have read the entire thread, thank you :(
However, it has become quite clear in this thread that Ms Rantzen did already know quite a lot about her grandfather, Montague Leverson, and there was quite a lot that was only a Google away, so even if the makers do have a golden rule about telling the celebrities things in advance, they are not being totally honest about revealing the depth of information that the celebrities already knew.
-
However, it has become quite clear in this thread that Ms Rantzen did already know quite a lot about her grandfather, Montague Leverson, and there was quite a lot that was only a Google away, so even if the makers do have a golden rule about telling the celebrities things in advance, they are not being totally honest about revealing the depth of information that the celebrities already knew.
How has it been made clear in this thread the she knew a lot about her great-grandfather? As I said, I didn't play much of part in the research so don't have any inside knowledge, but when I watched the programme it seemed she didn't even know Montague's name until she was told it by her relation. She couldn't have done a Google search without knowing the man's name could she?
Even if she could look into Montague, want makes you think Esther would have the time or inclination to do any research when she knew it was all being done for her already by people like me?
-
How has it been made clear in this thread the she knew a lot about her great-grandfather?
This quote from Hivizman:
"In a recent biography of Finzi (Diana McVeagh's Gerald Finzi: His Life and Work, there's a footnote mentioning that one of Leverson's sons was Esther Rantzen's grandfather (Esther mentions this in an article in yesterday's Daily Mail, so I suspect that much of her family history on her mother's side was known to her already)."
You think that someone wrote in a book that Leverson was Rantzen's grandfather, and she wasn't aware of it ? Hmmm......
"As I said, I didn't play much of part in the research so don't have any inside knowledge.... "
Sorry, but that's not the impression that you gave in your first post, where you gave the impression that you were quite involved :)
-
You think that someone wrote in a book that Leverson was Rantzen's grandfather, and she wasn't aware of it ? Hmmm......
That isn't a very realistic claim. If I were to writ a book about Leverson, and I knew a celebrity such as Rantzen was a granddaughter of the subject, I'd be in touch for research purposes. See what kind of relationship he had with his family etc.
Also, if someone was writing a book about any of my grandparents, I', pretty sure I'd know about it - especially if I was named as a grandson within the book.
-
perhaps the things that are on google have been added after the research was done like the informaton by 'Cilla Rantzen - Esthers sister
Esther said at the beginning she knew there was a black sheep in her family and that her grandfather was talked about, so she knew somethings that would be turned upwould not be very good and she knew it had something to do with her grandfather or was thather greatgrandfather
-
You think that someone wrote in a book that Leverson was Rantzen's grandfather, and she wasn't aware of it ? Hmmm......
That isn't a very realistic claim. If I were to writ a book about Leverson, and I knew a celebrity such as Rantzen was a granddaughter of the subject, I'd be in touch for research purposes. See what kind of relationship he had with his family etc.
Also, if someone was writing a book about any of my grandparents, I', pretty sure I'd know about it - especially if I was named as a grandson within the book.
Precisely. Writing a book making allegations about any personality in a book would be very unwise without checking it out with them beforehand :)
-
According to google, Leverson also dabbled in politics.
Leverson, Montague R. — of California. Member of California state assembly 12th District, 1883-84. Burial location unknown.
I think it would be best if we didn't go there. ;)
Sounds like a very interesting man...
-
This quote from Hivizman:
"In a recent biography of Finzi (Diana McVeagh's Gerald Finzi: His Life and Work, there's a footnote mentioning that one of Leverson's sons was Esther Rantzen's grandfather (Esther mentions this in an article in yesterday's Daily Mail, so I suspect that much of her family history on her mother's side was known to her already)."
You think that someone wrote in a book that Leverson was Rantzen's grandfather, and she wasn't aware of it ? Hmmm......
"As I said, I didn't play much of part in the research so don't have any inside knowledge.... "
Sorry, but that's not the impression that you gave in your first post, where you gave the impression that you were quite involved :)
I think it's a little much to assume that she'd read a footnote in a rather obscure recently published book. Also this footnote is about her grandfather not her great-grandfather (Montague). I've not seen this book but I doubt it mentions Montague - so that's not going to help her googling is it? She never claimed not to know about her grandfather.
I've just read the Daily Mail piece she wrote and she doesn't mention the book - just that her grandfather knew Finzi. It also talks about a researcher who kept questioning her to check her story about what she did and didn't know. Worth a read I think:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1051986/Esther-Rantzen-The-moment-I-discovered-shocking-truth-killer-great-grandfather.html
In my first post I clearly said "I was involved a little helping with some research ". I don't think this contradicts my later post does it?
-
Worth a read I think:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1051986/Esther-Rantzen-The-moment-I-discovered-shocking-truth-killer-great-grandfather.html
I'm glad I didn't read that before I watched - totally theatrical ! "My Killer great-grandfather" - he had an accident with a gun, for god's sake ! ::)
-
I think Esther's article helps to fill in the gaps left by the rather harsh and possibly lop-sided editing in the programme.
She is undoubtedly a bit of a drama queen. Well, you don't get far in show business if you are a shy, retiring type do you?
A programme of just under an hour cannot possibly show all of the research, any more that dog borstal or supernanny programmes can show the hard work which takes place off camera.
It was a superficial, flawed bit of tv in which the star came out looking a bit foolish but I suggest we all get over it and decide whether we want to watch any more of the series.
We have no right to demolish her character but we do have a right to vote with our feet by turning the tellybox off when we don't wish to watch something!
-
I'm glad I didn't read that before I watched - totally theatrical ! "My Killer great-grandfather" - he had an accident with a gun, for god's sake !
I doubt Esther was responsible for the headline.
-
We have no right to demolish her character but we do have a right to vote with our feet by turning the tellybox off when we don't wish to watch something!
Turn the tellybox off? But what would we do? You have to watch WDYTYA for this forum. It is almost like a book club where the novel for discussion is the weekly programme. You have to watch it whether you like it or not. ;D
-
People seem to get so grumpy with each other sometimes. ::) All those that complain, please chill; yes it could be better, but there aren't many programmes better on telly nowadays! Some WDYTYAs I like, others not so much (I didn't particularly like the Springer one, but most did), but at least they are about our subject and we should be glad for that at least.
Thanks to Susan_131 for a bit of an insiders view :)
-
I have followed this debate with interest. However, I, personally, do not think it is important, whether, Esther Rantzen (or the other celebrities' histories) knew some facts, all of it, or none at all. To me, the program was very interesting. I do not really understand this need to establish that each celebrity 'must have known', etc.
Frankly, I am not bothered one way or the other. The program was really interesting.
I made the mistake in the first series or only watching the program if I liked the celebrity. Then I realised that this did not really matter (to me). What is interesting is how one can uncover family history, and what sources are used, and what discoveries are made.
This episode showed how the Times Newspaper Archive can be used to establish detail of the past.
I also found the Warsaw section interesting, and especially the overgrown Jewish cemetary, (which was not as overgrown as the cemetary in South London where my Gt Grandfather is buried).
The deaths of all those family members explained why they decided to make the move to England at that time.
A great program. I enjoyed it. I am hooked on these programs.
-
Dave that cemetery wouldnt be near Peckham would it. I still have the scars from my ramble in there or should that be Bramble. And yes I did eventually find the gravestone.
Bazza
-
Nunhead cemetary. I knew the plot number, but despite instructions between x and y graves, 4 rows back, could not find it the first time, despite finding the x and y graves.
had to ring up again, and get a map....
Re the program, It would be nice if the remaining Jewish community in warsaw could record the MIs remaining, which were in Yiddish?, I believe, but maybe there are too few members of the community remaining.
-
he wouldnt be a Pardoe by any chance LOL
Bazza
-
The inscriptions on the stones in Warsaw looked like Hebrew to me, not Yiddish.
Nanny Jan
-
I have followed this debate with interest. However, I, personally, do not think it is important, whether, Esther Rantzen (or the other celebrities' histories) knew some facts, all of it, or none at all. To me, the program was very interesting. I do not really understand this need to establish that each celebrity 'must have known', etc.
Frankly, I am not bothered one way or the other. The program was really interesting.
Good points well made Dave.
Hi Nanny Jan, You are both correct I think the language would be Yiddish written in Hebrew alphabet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet
-
Off topic for a minute but I just wondered ........... Susan_131 has contributed a number of interesting posts, so why does her number of posts show as 0? ???
-
Hi Roobarb,
I think posts on The Lighter Side and Totally Off Topic do not count towards the total.
Nanny Jan
-
Presumably posts on this board don't count towards your total.
-
Oh of course, silly me, I knew that in the back of my mind! Just ignore me!
(http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Confused/sorry-20.GIF)
-
I would have been really interested to hear more about Esther's mother's family . There can't be many celebs whose family are part of the very early British Jewish community . I would like to learn more about them .
And the newspaper archives ! I have found several of my own poorer ancestors recorded in these online archives - so far, none of them for wrongdoings .
Re the Warsaw ghetto :
If you have Irish ancestors who emigrated because of the Famine , most people would still feel a connection and would still try to find where they came from in Ireland . And there would likely still be a complicated emotional connection to those years . Would this be similar ?
I did learn from the programme that the Jewish community was invited to settle in Poland - did the anti-semitism begin with the Russian entry into the country ?
-
I saw this quite late on iPlayer
Esther seemed ambivalent
When there was bad news she said she was shocked but she was smiling.
I enjoyed the show, and don't mind the contrived nature.
Though I feel terribly for Jewish people and the persecution suffered, I wonder if the program could move on to another ethnic group
Bob
-
I happen to know from discussing it with her that scilla had done a lot of research before the programme! And there is a lot about Montague R Leverson online in the archives of the NY Times - he was a busy man! No-one seems to know though why he left England, and what the accusations were. It seems like they may have been something to do with the Trade union troubles that were going on at the time. If anyone has any clues it would be great!