RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Parmesan on Wednesday 15 August 12 21:40 BST (UK)
-
You can tell she's an actress. ::) The family history is interesting but Ms Womack is annoying!
-
I know what you mean about her.
Am I the only one who is wondering why her great grandparents marriage wasn't looked up? I've found a marriage for an Alexander Cunningham Ryan in 1908 in Plymouth. One of the possible spouses is a Beatrice. Is that just a coincience do you think? Why haven't they mentioned the marriage? If it is the same ACR the Beatrice they're talking about would only have been 14 at the time of the marriage. In the 1911 census ACR is noted as being a musician, born in Glasgow and married for 3 years, although no sign of a wife.
And if Beatrice was taken to America, how did she and ACR meet?
ETA: Have just looked at ACR's military records online and his wife in 1914 was Beatrice Winifred Ryan (nee Pickford). So did he marry again, and to another Beatrice? I can only assume SW's grandmother gave her more information than we saw on the program.
-
Quite. I found a few incoming passenger lists too which suggests Jessie came over a few times, presumably keeping in touch with Beatrice.
-
Was it just me or did Sam have difficulty reading even the simplest entries on the certificates. I know we are more used to the format of them, but I felt she made a real 'what does that say' over the most straightforward of things. Interesting programme though.
-
they did describe Beatrice as ACR's partner at one point, so maybe they didn't marry
-
they did describe Beatrice as ACR's partner at one point, so maybe they didn't marry
Ah ok, I must have missed that bit. Maybe they didn't want to dwell on SW's grandmother being illegitimate.
-
The record sheet at the Scots Guards HQ seemed to show the shooting incident was in Feb 1914 - pre war - surely an error in their documents, unless it was accidental and not caused by war?
-
Was it just me or did Sam have difficulty reading even the simplest entries on the certificates. I know we are more used to the format of them, but I felt she made a real 'what does that say' over the most straightforward of things. Interesting programme though.
that's what was irritating me. I was shouting at the telly ;D
At one point when the older woman was showing her marriage and birth certificates it was like a teacher helping a 5 year old to read "Sh - af -te ...." Does it say Shaftesbury?
Yes, love, have a lollipop ;D
-
Looks like I wasn't the only one thinking this
Beatrice (Finkle) Garraud was in New Jersey in the 1910 census with her mother aged 14 so its quite clear that she didn't marry in 1908 ....I wonder if there are any children from this marriage to Beatrice Pickford ....looking for her in 1911.
N
-
The record sheet at the Scots Guards HQ seemed to show the shooting incident was in Feb 1914 - pre war - surely an error in their documents, unless it was accidental and not caused by war?
Looking at his military record sheet for the Scots Guards on ancestry, he was in France between December 1914 and March 1915 although I can't see a date of when the injury happened. Although the 'distinctive marks
section of his sign-up sheet for 1914 does say he already had a bullet wound to his lower right chest.
-
Have to admit I kept wishing she would move her finger off the document so I could read the rest of it without waiting for her to decipher it! :D At least she seemed genuinely interested though.
Interesting stuff though. I would have liked to have known more about the circumstances of the grandfather who stole the instruments - why was he of no fixed abode? Why did he need to pawn the instruments? How did he get on after his dishonourable discharge?
-
Looks like I wasn't the only one thinking this
Beatrice (Finkle) Garraud was in New Jersey in the 1910 census with her mother aged 14 so its quite clear that she didn't marry in 1908 ....I wonder if there are any children from this marriage to Beatrice Pickford ....looking for her in 1911.
N
Beatrice Ryan (nee Pickford) was working as a waitress in a theatre in Plymouth. It seems as though they never had children from the birth entries. The records imply she died in Paddington in 1958. She features in ancestry's will index but is listed as a spinster. So maybe Beatrice and ACR divorced or separated.
-
Thank you for that ....
Trying now to see when Beatrice Finkle (Garraud ) returned to the UK.......ACR is down as a Theatre Musician in the 1911 so perhaps he went over to the states .
n
-
I was annoyed with fingering of records, surprised she did n't have to wear any white gloves or plastic gloves as in local archives and as for her attempt at reading. The excessive shock response at what she found out. Although i found her very funny as well and the program interesting and trust those war records to have survived but obviously stored in a different place.
-
The funniest thing I found about the programme was having a house
numbered 36.1/2. Whats all that about laugh.
Sammantha did seem to be intense about it all but I think she must
be short sighted and didnt want to wear her glasses?
-
I have just rerun the start where she talks to her gran and gran says that "her sister".... and then when she is asked about ACR she says not a lot because "they separated" so by the look of it there was a bit that needed glossing over..........
N
-
Re. Samantha not using gloves to touch the records: it seems to be a matter of personal preference between archivists/conservators now. I had a conversation with the National Trust's top paper conservator last year about it, and he was of the opinion that as long as you have washed your hands well it is better to be able to feel the document with your skin so you are more aware, in a tactile way, of how you're handling it.
I'll take my conservator head off again now though, and put my amateur genealogist one back on ;)
-
Just watched the Sam Womack episode.
Initial reactions: Sam was maybe a wee bit too quick to judge. Impossible to know the full story of family circumstances that cause people to emigrate. What about all the American cousins she must have - is she not curious to find out about them?
Sharing the irritation with the excessive fingering, the countless shocked faces and the looks to camera full of anticipation as she clicks the search button.
Very enjoyable episode all the same - what was Pierre Garraud's occupation? Did I see "Judge" on the document. Lots of music on the French side that didn't get a mention in the same way that Alexander Ryan got.
Gerry
-
At the end of the programme, Sam Womack said something like "I used to be afraid of my family history, but now I know my roots", and I burst out laughing, because she had only gone back 100 years and looked at two ancestors !
Why did they hire professional genealogists to show her how to do an Ancestry search ?
This programme was deliberately distorted to give maximum theatrical impact, and if future programmes are this bad, then I won't be watching ! ???
-
Nick - my OH also reflected on the fact she had not gone back that far! It was probably very unexciting in earlier years - ag labs and weavers etc. (Didnt Michael Parkinson say he had been " rejected" as a subject as his history was ag labs etc?)
I saw the Judge bit too. Judge of what?
I felt very frustrated by the whole programme. There was a great opportunity to do something about the Scottish records which hold so much more info than English ones.....what about French connections etc....? And of course the "theatricals" when the secrets were uncovered.
It left so many unanswered questions - yes of course they only have about 55 minutes of programme and I have no doubt if any of us were researching this family, there are lots of leads to follow up!
But nice to see some well preserved war records.
-
I didn't see the programme, so can't comment on the content but I can comment on the process. The filming process is done in rough chronological order, so the 'reveals' are happening there and then. Filming is done over at least a week, and the prior research is done over a period of around 6 - 8 months. During the research period, a 'story' is worked out, and filming is done to reflect this. However, when it comes to cutting the footage down to only an hour, there are lots of strands and information which obviously has to be cut, and this can lead to the final episode chosen seemingly having lots of loose ends.
She will have found out a lot about her family, but we may not have seen it all. And as for hiring a professional researcher to use Ancestry, they will have been there as a guide to show how it's done. How many of you were experts at using online databases when you started your research? The individuals are chosen because they don't know anything, haven't done any research, and don't know how to go about it. Yes, they might be spoon-fed the information, but it's all been thoroughly researched and at the end of the day this is only an entertainment programme, not a how-to guide or in-depth look. If it was, each programme would be about 4 hours long.
-
Just did some checking on Jessie Ryder having noted her father was an Alfred Ryder, Accountant. She was born in Devon and there with her family in 1881. By 1891 family are now in London - on both census Alfred is shown as .....Clerk so 'Accountant' might be a bit fanciful. However, on 1891 Census - ref. RG12 - 120 - 53 - 42 - two of Jessie's sisters, aged just 14 and 12, are both shown as 'Music Hall Artiste'!!! Following in steps of sister Jessie.
Annette
-
I watched on iPlayer this morning.
It was the deep red nail varnish that got me .... I was so put off by it that I didn't try and read what she was trying to read on the documents !
She was theatrical, true, but that is in her genes .... and she works as an actress so only to be expected.
Beatrice was seriously scarey from that photo !
-
At the end of the programme, Sam Womack said something like "I used to be afraid of my family history, but now I know my roots", and I burst out laughing, because she had only gone back 100 years and looked at two ancestors !
Why did they hire professional genealogists to show her how to do an Ancestry search ?
This programme was deliberately distorted to give maximum theatrical impact, and if future programmes are this bad, then I won't be watching ! ???
For once I find myself agreeing with Nick 29 ;) :P
I thought they played too much on the theatrical effect of news on her and not enough on the content of what she was actually finding.
I know they can't put in everything they film but to my mind there were too many unanswered questions and holes that left the programme flawed and disconnected.
I also laughed at her comment about knowing her roots - indeed after 2 ancestors ::)
Kerry
-
She was seriously annoying. Forever running her hands through her hair, or flicking her hair about; reading with a finger, overdone surprise etc etc.
It was interesting family history though. I want to know more about them. Annette7 posted some interesting stuff about them a couple of posts back.
-
I thought she was a bit dim-if she really had this aching need to understand her roots, she might have had the gumption to ask her gran years ago...
and going to New York to look up stuff on line-guess you don't do the programme if you don't get some free travel out of it
-
I thought she was a bit dim-if she really had this aching need to understand her roots, she might have had the gumption to ask her gran years ago...
and going to New York to look up stuff on line-guess you don't do the programme if you don't get some free travel out of it
In fairness, who is going to want to sit for 10 x 1 hour episodes looking at what family history research is really like? Staring cross-eyed at a screen surrounded by bits of paper for hours on end, with the occasional trip to a silent archive search room to stare at a microfiche reader surrounded by bits of paper, or (if you're really lucky) the chance to tramp round an overgrown, damp graveyard peering at headstones... ;)
-
In fairness, who is going to want to sit for 10 x 1 hour episodes looking at what family history research is really like? .....or (if you're really lucky) the chance to tramp round an overgrown, damp graveyard peering at headstones... ;)
Just what I found myself doing for most of this afternoon! ;D ;D ;D
Fair comments from previous posts; agree with most of them. Also, I wish we'd been told (even briefly) what happened to Beatrice after she rejoined her mother in the US. SW may possibly have relatives descended from her, but it wasn't touched upon.
-
I didn't see the programme, so can't comment on the content but I can comment on the process. The filming process is done in rough chronological order, so the 'reveals' are happening there and then.....
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that ? Now, when someone walks into a registry office or library, surrounded by a film crew, and is handed a couple of books which conveniently have bookmarks in them at the exact page where the critical information is to be found, then I think I am right in assuming that the whole thing is a pre-rehearsed job? I'm sure that lots of people are not aware that the whole thing is pre-rehearsed, but then many people in the UK are convinced that Albert Square and The Queen Vic pub are real places ::)
Of course it's quite hard to look surprised at a 'reveal' which may be the 4th or 5th take of a particular scene, which is presumably why the actors and actresses who have been featured have always looked much more convincing when they act surprised.
-
Let's face it, these programmes are not family history research as we know it !
I think watching them, as so many of us do, is a kind of voyeurism .... being nosey about someone famous !
-
I didn't see the programme, so can't comment on the content but I can comment on the process. The filming process is done in rough chronological order, so the 'reveals' are happening there and then.....
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that ? Now, when someone walks into a registry office or library, surrounded by a film crew, and is handed a couple of books which conveniently have bookmarks in them at the exact page where the critical information is to be found, then I think I am right in assuming that the whole thing is a pre-rehearsed job? I'm sure that lots of people are not aware that the whole thing is pre-rehearsed, but then many people in the UK are convinced that Albert Square and The Queen Vic pub are real places ::)
Of course it's quite hard to look surprised at a 'reveal' which may be the 4th or 5th take of a particular scene, which is presumably why the actors and actresses who have been featured have always looked much more convincing when they act surprised.
I mean that the celebrity has no idea before the filming what they are about to see. It's not rehearsed, the celebrities don't have a script. If there is more than one take, it's because someone has fluffed what they're saying (the experts aren't usually used to being on camera, and it can be quite nervewracking for them).
So it's not pre-rehearsed, apart from the odd time there is more than one take, either for fluffed lines, or for different angles of shots. When the celebrity is shown a document, they don't know what it is until they see it.
The amount of research which goes into WDYTYA is immense, and the reasons there are bookmarks in the pages is because someone has spent hours looking for the information and marked the pages so they can be easily found.
The experts know what's going on, but the celebrity doesn't until they're shown it. They know that something interesting will be shown to them, but they don't know what.
-
I think we're all aware of the amount of research that goes into it, just from doing our own family trees! I think I was probably aware that the subject doesn't get to see stuff before the reveal but maybe the process is rehearsed?
Maybe you can tell us if the subject is 'directed' in their responses because SW was SO over the top as to be extremely irritating.
To be fair, I suppose folk who watch the programme that aren't researching themselves might find it less so.
-
Not as 'over the top' as one well-known actress ;)
-
Loved the episode and thought they packed a lot of content into a hour. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
Ron
-
I did enjoy the show and that to make a story they show the story not in the order in which we would all do research
-
I had never heard of Samantha Womack before but i found the programme very interesting.
-
Hi,
Some unseen footage about Jessie Ryder:
http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/footage/13742
Nanny Jan
-
In the 1911 census Alexander Cunningham Ryan's wife Beatrice (born Pickford) is living with her widowed mother in Plymouth, I wonder what happened to her?
Reference: RG14PN13001 RG78PN749 RD276 SD3 ED25 SN190
-
I was really looking forward to the new series and gave my hubby strict instructions not to call me between 9-10 so I wouldn't miss anything :)
I have to say that Sam's reaactions could have been OTT but then I remembered my reaction last Month when I found my 3rd cousins had moved to the US and married each other..... it was pretty much the same sort of shock and Blimey reaction lol.
The first episode was really great and mirrored a part of my own family history that I've only recently found out about, like I said my 3rd cousins moved to the US via NYC in around 1900 and settled in Union City, New Jersey so it was really interesting to see the research they did on that side of things although it would have been nice to see more.
I'm now really looking forward to the next episodes
Michelle
-
I think it's horses for courses - if you find this sort of thing irritating, then don't watch.
However, I think dealing with history, taking us back to different times and showing how people (whether famous or not) are affected by finding out how their ancestors lived (which is something which has happened to all of us, here, am I right?) is very interesting.
It's not a programme about how to do genealogical research, in my view, it's a programme about discovering things and then seeing the effects of family history on a particular person.
And having been first of all intrigued, then hooked, then fascinated and then, honestly, totally affected in my day to day life by my own genealogical researches, I find it very interesting to watch.
Thanks to Archivos for explaining how it's set up. If you've been involved in previous Who Do You Think You Are programmes, Archivos, (it sounds as if you may have been) then thank you. They're always on my "must watch" list.
-
It's always on my 'must watch' list as well. :)
That said, I still have an opinion on the subject, that's human nature, yes? Some have been genuinely interested, some have looked bored, some are irritating. The subject is part of the programme too so therefore liable to comment.
From me at least ;D
-
It's always on my 'must watch' list as well. :)
That said, I still have an opinion on the subject, that's human nature, yes? Some have been genuinely interested, some have looked bored, some are irritating. The subject is part of the programme too so therefore liable to comment.
From me at least ;D
exactly so Parmesan-not only entiled to an opinion, but able to express it in this forum
-
Sorry, Parmesan and Mc8, not quite sure what in my message said you weren't entitled to an opinion?
-
You said 'if you find this sort of thing irritating, then don't watch'.
I don't find the programme irritating, I found Samantha Womack irritating and I didn't know she was going to be irritating until I watched the programme. ::)
I then posted my opinion about SW saying I was irritated by her and you said, well, you know what you said.
Full circle ;D
-
Considering she is an ACTRESS -- I didnt expect her not to over re-ACT
I also wonder if the way she is pointing to each word, when reading ---- could be that she is Dyslexic, and this is how she reads. I have seen this way of reading, with people whose brain is ahead of what their eyes are seeing, it helps to slow down the process. So that the sentences come out in order rather than jumbled.
I enjoyed the show, although I do get frustrated when it shows that it is seemingly SO EASY to find a rellie, when we all know how darned difficult and expensive it can be.
xin
-
You said 'if you find this sort of thing irritating, then don't watch'.
I don't find the programme irritating, I found Samantha Womack irritating and I didn't know she was going to be irritating until I watched the programme. ::)
I then posted my opinion about SW saying I was irritated by her and you said, well, you know what you said.
Full circle ;D
None of what I said suggests you shouldn't have an opinion. I am astonished you take it that way. ???
In fact I was speaking generally in my post about all the comments and not specifically yours or anyone else's.
You are perfectly welcome to like or dislike as you please, and I can only tell you what I like about the programme, which is what I did.
It's unpleasant to be cast as judgemental when that is not my intent at all.
-
OK folks .... this is about Samantha Womack, NOT about judging each other !!
Get back to the topic .... please ??
-
I really enjoyed it, found the people in it interesting even if it didn't go back that far and didn't find her reactions or trying to read the info annoying at all... I'm sure we have all struggled to read entries at some time (you only have to look at the disciphering threads) and I've done a few OOOOO OO OOO moments myself when finding something new or unexpected. At least she didn't burst into tears at every entry or info found like some previous "celebs" have.
I was surprised that that there was no "OH look he was a musician too" in places and that in trying to find when Jessie went to the US she immediately put in the maiden name without trying the married name (perhaps an edit?) and perhaps some info about Beatrice returning to UK/ meeting her great grandfather would have tidied the story up a bit but I thought it was really interesting.
As already pointed out WDYTYA couldn't possible show a proper beginning to end search for these programmes or show everything and everybody in the trees. I love the programme even if leaves me terribly sad that I can't just jump on a train or plane and go searching all over the country or the world for my elusive ancestors (and have some terribly helpful researcher bookmark everything and print off all the certificates and records before I arrive)
-
What I found particularly irksome about this particular programme was that it was assumed almost from the outset that the children had been abandoned, based on pretty flimsy evidence, and when the story unravelled it turned out that this was not the case at all, but of course it made a much better story when told that way. I'm not sure that any self-respecting genealogist would have jumped to such dire conclusions based on so little evidence !
And, of course Sam Womack didn't really have to travel to the USA to find out what she needed to know - it could all have been done by email, but then we wouldn't have found out what colour the front door of number 361/2 was ::) And I suspect that Ms Womack wouldn't have agreed to do the programme without an expenses-paid trip to the US?
My grandfather's brother emigrated to the US, and I've managed to find out all about his family, have located many living relatives, and have located photographs of the family, all without travelling to the USA. If anyone over there had offered me a free ticket over and free board and lodgings, I probably would not have turned them down :)
-
hmm well I think if I found the children in orphanages/childrens homes it would probably be my first thought until I found the further information ... bit like people who see an ancestor in the census with a relative and assume they were living with or brought up by them without even considering that it could be they were just there on that census night
-
hmm well I think if I found the children in orphanages/childrens homes it would probably be my first thought until I found the further information ... bit like people who see an ancestor in the census with a relative and assume they were living with or brought up by them without even considering that it could be they were just there on that census night
I wondered why they didn't search for the orphanage admission record which would have given further details-the discharge shows they were taken out by the grandparents (did wonder if they actually put them in originally if they were for some reason unable to care for them). From my examination of scattered homes registers in Camberwell, it is quite clear that some children were repeat visitors, staying for a short time when carers were sick or out of work or a host of other reasons
-
And, of course Sam Womack didn't really have to travel to the USA to find out what she needed to know - it could all have been done by email,
You're quite right - but how many episodes of WDYTYA have you watched when the subject hasn't gone off on a trip somewhere ::)
-
And, of course Sam Womack didn't really have to travel to the USA to find out what she needed to know - it could all have been done by email,
You're quite right - but how many episodes of WDYTYA have you watched when the subject hasn't gone off on a trip somewhere ::)
Indeed. Obviously, its an entertainment show as much as anything else but even if they insist on flying folk around the globe to search records, it would be helpful if they informed the viewer that its not absolutely necessary and that many records can be found online. Maybe it tells you that on their website?
-
I was interested in the french Judge connection which they didn't cover-but although he married a year later, I couldn't find any record for Pierre Garraud or his father in the 1891 despite trying the usual tricks to account for the transcriber's challenge in recording unusual names. Did anyone else find them?
-
And, of course Sam Womack didn't really have to travel to the USA to find out what she needed to know - it could all have been done by email,
You're quite right - but how many episodes of WDYTYA have you watched when the subject hasn't gone off on a trip somewhere ::)
It wouldn't have been so bad if Ms Womack had been allowed to look around the house where her ancestor lived, but a six-hour plane journey just to stand on the steps ? ::)
When she travelled all that way, I was sure that she was going to be linked up with a descendant over there, but alas, another damp squib ???
-
I think the thing is that they are visually tying the viewer to the celebs roots ... if they were just getting shots of people in front of their computers emailing and saying " they lived in New York" or wherever the viewer wouldn't be particularly entertained or drawn into their stories - as much as I am completely jealous they have the opportunities to go wherever and get experts to sit down with them and explain stuff if it was just an hour of someone sitting at their pc on Ancestry, googling and emailing it wouldn't be particularly thrilling - jetting off to somewhere in their search makes the whole thing seem more of an adventure (even if in reality people who do FH know it wasn't necessary)
One of my fav episodes was Gryff Rhys Jones - apart from the humour in it, it was good to see someone sending off for certificates that weren't the right ones straight away for a change!
-
the link to the unseen footage about The Greatest Show On Earth, further up this thread was interesting, can't imagine why it was excluded.
One of my favourite episodes, which I didn't expect to enjoy, was Jason Donovan. Those men building a road up the mountain in a few months was amazing.
-
Yes I like it when they link up with a rellie, they never knew they had.
;)
xin
-
And, of course Sam Womack didn't really have to travel to the USA to find out what she needed to know - it could all have been done by email,
You're quite right - but how many episodes of WDYTYA have you watched when the subject hasn't gone off on a trip somewhere ::)
Indeed. Obviously, its an entertainment show as much as anything else but even if they insist on flying folk around the globe to search records, it would be helpful if they informed the viewer that its not absolutely necessary and that many records can be found online. Maybe it tells you that on their website?
i found him as an Assistant at a school in one census, and a Professor of Music in another. But no, nothing in 1891 and at the time couldn't find his death. The 'judge' reference set me off looking for him, perhaps his father was still in France?
-
Gregg Wallace on Wednesday BBC1 9PM
-
I think it's horses for courses - if you find this sort of thing irritating, then don't watch.
However, I think dealing with history, taking us back to different times and showing how people (whether famous or not) are affected by finding out how their ancestors lived (which is something which has happened to all of us, here, am I right?) is very interesting.
It's not a programme about how to do genealogical research, in my view, it's a programme about discovering things and then seeing the effects of family history on a particular person.
And having been first of all intrigued, then hooked, then fascinated and then, honestly, totally affected in my day to day life by my own genealogical researches, I find it very interesting to watch.
Thanks to Archivos for explaining how it's set up. If you've been involved in previous Who Do You Think You Are programmes, Archivos, (it sounds as if you may have been) then thank you. They're always on my "must watch" list.
Yes, I've been involved in both the research side and the filming side (as one of the 'experts', though my bit didn't make the final cut :( ). It's always interesting to see how the production company whittles down the footage to make the final version, but one thing I'm not sure of is how much narration they give to Mark Strong (that is who it is, isn't it?!) before they edit, which is why he may say some things which haven't been fully covered in the final version.
-
Gregg Wallace on Wednesday BBC1 9PM
Genealogy doesn't get much tougher than this! ;D ;D ;D
-
It will be interesting to see if any of Gregg Wallace's ancestors had 'a sweet tooth' :)
-
I'm really looking forward to this one. :)
-
It will be interesting to see if any of Gregg Wallace's ancestors had 'a sweet tooth' :)
;D ;D ;D
You mean in the same way that lot's of Sam's were musicians Nick?
I wonder if any of mine were genealogists 8)
-
I wonder if any of mine were genealogists 8)
On second thoughts,surely they'd have left a better paper trail and married at least 9 months before having kids, if they were.
-
I've just managed to catch up watching this - and I enjoyed it - but then I always find something to enjoy in WDYTA despite them skipping things and making assumptions. Although it did make me laugh when they had her travelling up and down the country looking for service records. I kept following up the commentary with ... "or they could just have looked online". ;D
A couple ofthings did confuse me though - perhaps I missed something.
In the news reports of the baby dying in the fire - it said the grandfather was Alfred Wright a music teacher. She said they got the name wrong - but no mention was made of the fact that her father was supposed to be an accountant not a music teacher. Or did I get confused with who is who?
And also - When Berthe was in the orphanage in 1901 she was 6 - yet when they found her in USA she was only 14 and on the boat was only 10. I know that ages are not always accurate but it wasnt questioned. Unless I have got my dates confused.
And...I would have liked to have know how the father died which may have explained a bit about why the children were in the orphanage.
Milly