RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Geoff-E on Thursday 30 August 12 08:33 BST (UK)
-
:-\
-
Watched the Paralympic Games opening, so not seen it yet :(
-
oh doh!! what with Bank Holiday this week I thought it was Tuesday yesterday and missed it .. grrr.
Hopefully its on iplayer already
-
Looks like it was a memorial to his father. I think they just did what patrick wanted to find out. I would have liked more about other ancestors. It would have been better as a stand alone feature.
-
Looks like it was a memorial to his father. I think they just did what patrick wanted to find out. I would have liked more about other ancestors. It would have been better as a stand alone feature.
It was very interesting (actually made me feel a little sad) but I agree with your comment. Maybe had been better in that series a few months back about what celebs ancestors did in the war.
-
Sent overseas to combat tyrany & oppression, he returned to practise it at home. Don't swallow the hero stuff. He was in Belgium for five minutes and returned to complain of shell-shock, comparisons with the guys on the Somme were odious.
Patrick wanted to believe this portrayal, his brother who knew the subject better, and what their mother went through, looked rather more sceptical.
The real hero was the mother, financial circumstances meant she had to put up with this crap.
Agree with weste, not much in the way of genealogy.
-
It actually made me feel sad because of the feeling of desperation of wanting a reason for his father being the way he was - maybe the war did it too him but maybe it didn't but it is a case of jumping to conclusions again ... having re enlisted at 38 to such a physical role and his rise through the ranks and a start as regimental police maybe he was just a man who thrived on asserting his authority and conflict.
-
He was in Belgium for five minutes and returned to complain of shell-shock, comparisons with the guys on the Somme were odious.
Shell-shock (or PTSD) isn't quantative! It's not a case of the worse the experience the worse the shell-shock
Some people go through terrible ordeals and don't get it at all
Given the type of man he was, he would probably have agreed with the WWI view that shell-shock was a sign of 'weakness', and not admitted, even to himself, that he had a problem. There would have been very little support available even if he had been willing to look for help.
There is also the fact that he had spent most of his life giving orders and expecting them to be obeyed
Unfortunately there are still cases of soldiers (suffering from PTSD or not) being unable to fit back into civilian life
None of this excuses his behaviour towards Patrick's mother, but it might help to explain it
Linda
-
Linda, who told the reporter of the local paper that he had shell shock?
Skoosh.
-
Linda, who told the reporter of the local paper that he had shell shock?
Skoosh.
Good point.
-
Just re-watched the section on iPlayer (about 24 minutes into the programme). Alfred had had little food or sleep for 3 weeks and witnessed an aerial bombardment
If reporters then were anything like present day ones, you can imagine him saying to Alfred 'Would you say you were suffering from shell-shock?' and him just nodding.
It doesn't really matter though.
I was just making the point that PTSD (or any form of stress) can strike anyone, with terrible consequences for other family members
Linda
-
I suspect that Alfred might not have been a very nice peson anyway. After all he did join up just after the first son was born!. On the other hand, he was thrown into some pretty bad situations and seems to have acquitted himself well (the hero stuff)
But we don't know the whole story. Why did he decide to marry Patrick's mother after so long? Did she pester him into it? Why didn't he just walk away altogether?
As I said before, nothing excuses domestic violence, but this was rather a one-sided story!
I still found it very interesting
Linda
-
I've not watched it yet, although I've recorded it. I did read that Patrick Stewart was not interested in finding out anything about his family history, he just wanted to know what had turned his father into someone who abused his wife and family, but how does he know he wasn't like that before he fought in the war?
Lizzie
-
Forgot to record so will have to use i-player
(and I need to catch up with Celebrity masterchef too)
-
I've not watched it yet, although I've recorded it. I did read that Patrick Stewart was not interested in finding out anything about his family history, he just wanted to know what had turned his father into someone who abused his wife and family, but how does he know he wasn't like that before he fought in the war?
Lizzie
Exactly .. maybe going back a bit may have shown he came from a background where domestic abuse was the norm (NOT that it makes it OK - just agreeing the point he could well have been like it before the war)
As to why he married Patricks mother so long after the birth of the first son .. perhaps as he had to pay for the child he thought he may as well have a home to go to when on leave etc. Maybe the problems in the marriage weren't war induced but simply incompatibility and resentment .. or maybe a bit of both that and a problem settling in to civilian life. Whichever I don't really think it gave real answers just possible "excuses" for his behaviour.
-
Found the episode very interesting. I would have liked more information on his mother's background. When near the end he described his mother as timid I thought this sounded like a different person to the one who took his father to court to prove their son was his. That took some guts and determination to do but was glossed over quickly in the story.
My grandfather was injured twice in the second world war. One being a head injury, resulting in him having a metal plate inserted. The other was a foot injury. That is all we were ever told. He never spoke of the war. They were not encouraged to share their stories in those days. They cam back from a horror story of war to civilian life and were expected to fit straight back into it with little or no support.
Regards panda
-
I think that if I were in Patrick Stewart's position, I would have liked to find something endearing too.
-
This lassie found herself severely stressed, she found the courage to face him in court, no doubt at her parents insistence. Financial hardship was the name of the game here, if her mother wouldn't keep the child she would have to maintain him herself which involved full time work to keep a house with all that entails, and meantime who looks after the child? if he was taken into care she was liable to pay maintenance, failure to do so could result in a jail sentence.
Unlike thousands of others, Stewart's father returned from France without a scratch, many more never returned at all or spent the rest of the war in captivity.
There was no shortage of folk on both sides of the Atlantic who thought Dunkirk was the end of the war. Britain would sue for peace, Hitler picked up enough abandoned weapons to equip an army and some establishment figures here thought enough was enough.
Our hero was a user & abuser, the war provided an escape, not an excuse.
-
I think that if I were in Patrick Stewart's position, I would have liked to find something endearing too.
yes .. finding or believing a reason for someone being the way they were may exorcise a few ghosts - I don't blame him at all I think I would want the same thing in his position. That is what I found quite sad about the programme.
-
This lassie found herself severely stressed, she found the courage to face him in court, no doubt at her parents insistence. Financial hardship was the name of the game here, if her mother wouldn't keep the child she would have to maintain him herself which involved full time work to keep a house with all that entails, and meantime who looks after the child? if he was taken into care she was liable to pay maintenance, failure to do so could result in a jail sentence.
Unlike thousands of others, Stewart's father returned from France without a scratch, many more never returned at all or spent the rest of the war in captivity.
There was no shortage of folk on both sides of the Atlantic who thought Dunkirk was the end of the war. Britain would sue for peace, Hitler picked up enough abandoned weapons to equip an army and some establishment figures here thought enough was enough.
Our hero was a user & abuser, the war provided an escape, not an excuse.
good to see you know so much about him. maybe you should have helped the producers out with some background
-
I found the bit about his father's account on the hand in the train window very enlightening.
That shows to me classic shell-shock trauma.
Cheers
Guy
-
The programme gave us lots to think about in relation to armed combatants returning to "normal" civilian life. It is an unfortunate fact that many of the combat veterans of the Gulf and Afghan wars suffer all kinds of mental disorders, substance abuse an domestic violence etc and are unable to settle back into civilian life after the horrors they have witnessed and undoubtedly it was the same for Arthur and his generation.
We did not get much information about Arthur's role in civilian life, but perhaps he was also frustrated by the lack of opportunities in civilian life, unlike in his army career. Many working class men, including my own father, learned skills in military life which stood them in good stead in civvy street. But if your skills and talents were unappreciated, added to the stress of combat, no doubt many other men behaved as Arthur did.
The failure of medical staff to recognise mental distress and the stigma of being diagnosed as a "head case" would have deterred many from seeking the help they needed .
Mavals
-
I would have liked them to find out more about Alfred's childhood,his temper cannot all be put down to his war experiences surely? It must have had deeper roots than that?
-
I would have liked them to find out more about Alfred's childhood,his temper cannot all be put down to his war experiences surely? It must have had deeper roots than that?
I think the first join up with the regimental police hinted that it took a certain type of person and character which was what made me a little sceptical that his abuse could be completely put down to PTSD
-
I think that the people that have featured in the programmes have had many different reasons for doing it, this particular programme concentrated on the one big question in Patricks life that he wanted an answer to, for each programme to follow the same set pattern would become rather boring. Some end with happy reunions with long lost family, Bruce Forsythe for instance and some end with sadness, Jerry springer springs to mind when he was reunited with a cousin after a programme which explored his Jewish family and looked at the persecution they went through. I know more about my distant ancestors than I do about my grandmother and grandfather so I can see why the latest programme was made In this way.
-
For me, the programme illustrated what complex characters we often are.
His father's service with the Regimental Police, a role which in my experience often attracts the bullies. To relate the story of the hand out of the window to a child of five or six, seemed to me rather strange. However, he must have had condiderable ability as a soldier, to have been accepted into the Parachute Regt. at that age, and to have risen in rank as he did, even in wartime. I regret I did not find him likeable, but my own father had faults which I found difficult to accept, all of which highlights some fault in me also.
-
Skoosh , baggygenes and danuslave i think those are real slant on things.
-
Skoosh , baggygenes and danuslave i think those are real slant on things.
not sure quite what you mean?
-
Another interesting episode, simply because its subject, Patrick Stewart's father, was conflicted.
I'm not sure I always want the easy gratification of a programme that shows nice / heroic ancestors, a programme which ties up all loose ends, or a programme that reflects 'good genealogy' (whatever that is).
While Patrick, understandably, assessed the available information to explain his father's behaviour to his wife and children, the viewer was left to observe and form their own judgement.
Good stuff.
-
I didn't enjoy this episode at all, I can understand that he needed to find out about his Dad, but it could have been condensed and a bit more family history put in, :)
-
Another interesting episode, simply because its subject, Patrick Stewart's father, was conflicted.
I'm not sure I always want the easy gratification of a programme that shows nice / heroic ancestors, a programme which ties up all loose ends, or a programme that reflects 'good genealogy' (whatever that is).
While Patrick, understandably, assessed the available information to explain his father's behaviour to his wife and children, the viewer was left to observe and form their own judgement.
Good stuff.
I have to agree and I think this episode was quite thought provoking - not just on the information/character of Patricks dad but for me I also found it very interesting how even as adults and even after someone is no longer with us we still want to explain or justify the actions of others (I probably haven't explained myself very well .. but I know what I mean).
I think that maybe they should have gone back a little to show what stock his dad came from - which may have added an explanation to his character (or not) and made it more a "genealogical show" rather than a war story - possibly gone in to something about his mum (not so sure that they would have found anything that would have helped but maybe there was something that showed this was union a mismatch?) BUT the show is called "Who Do You Think You Are" (and this relationship with his father obviously shaped his life) rather than "How Far Back Can We Go".
I have thoroughly enjoyed this series so far
-
I would have liked more information on his mother's background. When near the end he described his mother as timid I thought this sounded like a different person to the one who took his father to court to prove their son was his. That took some guts and determination to do but was glossed over quickly in the story.
Felt, to me, like we were nowhere near getting the full story. Something didn't quite add up with Alfred and Patrick's mother being in formal dispute about the paternity/maintenance of the first child (who I didn't think looked anything like Alfred, Patrick or Patrick's wee brother...though looks don't have to mean anything I guess). For then, as Panda says, P's mother to be described as timid. Alfred was so hostile (intended, or not) to P's mother...as if he resented her or that earlier humiliation ( :-\) she seemingly subjected him to....if that was the case, why did he then marry her? A lot, lot more to it than meets the eye I'm sure.
Would also have like to know what sort of upbringing Alfred himself had, and where he came from.
I had supposed there may be more on the Stewarts, and a potential Scottish ancestry.
Not one of the better episodes, but that's just my opinion.
-
As usual the programme is limited in time and resources and couldn't hope to do everything. I found it fascinating and thoroughly enjoyed it. I only wish that I could have a few of those resources at my disposal though! I'd love to be able to trace my own father's involvement in the 2nd World War. Just how easy is it to access the records and at what cost?
Phil
-
I've read the whole thread with interest, and don't want to get into the shell shock / hero / abuser debate because although some comfort was provided to Patrick Stewart I didn't think anything was shown in enough depth to really understand his father, just to suggest some possibilities.
It was a different aspect that disturbed me, and actually made me think of Rootschat's 'no living details' policy with real gratitude. OK, his brother must have agreed to the whole programme or else wouldn't have been filmed at the end but I found something quite prurient about all the detail and debate about his mother and the birth of his elder brother out of wedlock. It all seemed a bit heartless to wash his mother's dirty linen in public as it were, and also to highlight his brother's situation in such detail, plus his paternity question,when his brother was still alive. It made me really appreciate how controlled everything is on here, with no publication of any details for someone who may be still living.
That led me on to think of something else, how far does one have to go to achieve the distance to make the switch from involvement to interest? Like most of us, I get very attached to some of my ancestors as I learn more about them, but there is that distance that protects. Trying to explain - when I found my gr.gr.grandfather didn't appear in the census because he was in jail I was intrigued, and discussed it with a fair few people. If that had been my father I've realised I would have felt very very differently. What if it had been my grandfather? How far does that distance need to go?
I hope this makes sense because I'm not finding it easy to explain but much as I love WDYTYA normally, yesterday's episode made me very uncomfortable on a lot of levels and unlike nearly all the other episodes I won't watch it for a second time.
-
I think I know what you mean and actually an interesting point. I am very happy to look into my grandfather illegitimacy or my greatgran dying in a workhouse but very aware my aunts are not so I don't really even though they aren't computer literate so won't see anything .. I feel free to do so on my mothers side (bigamy) because there are no living people directly involved in my family to tiptoe round... but then her father might have gone on to have another family who could very well be still living...and to be honest I hadn't really thought about that before
-
can't say that I think it was a good episode
Don't enjoy too much focus on one not far back story
I like previously unknown ancestors being revealed
-
Maggie, these programmes are made for money, Patrick's brother looked a bit uncomfortable, presumably he still lives in the area and there could be people who know more about the family, but I'm sure he would be getting a cheque as well. Why else would you do this.
The oldest of my uncles was a professional soldier in India before the war, he got away at Dunkirk but most of his regiment was trapped at St Vallery with the rest of the Highland Division and sent to Germany. He spent the rest of the war in a Lowland regiment, a very good natured and funny guy, indulgent to his family by all accounts. Don't remember the war being mentioned.
-
It all seemed a bit heartless to wash his mother's dirty linen in public as it were, and also to highlight his brother's situation in such detail, plus his paternity question,when his brother was still alive.
There were 3 brothers. Geoffrey b1925, Trevor, & Patrick b1940
The brother we saw at the end was Trevor
The one whose parentage had been in question was Geoffrey. Although it was never actually stated that he had died, Patrick seemed to speak about him in the past tense.
Linda
-
There's a Geoffrey Barrowclough born 1925 (mmn Barrowclough) death in 1974 Leeds there's also a second birth registration in 1933 surname Stewart mmn Barrowclough
-
I watched the programme tonight. I didn't find it as interesting as usual, although I was interested to learn of the British invasion of the South of France and capture of German soldiers. I'd never heard about that before.
I got the impression that Patrick Stewart's father was a bully towards his eldest son and his wife and Patrick was trying to find something to justify his behaviour.
My father was in Burma during WW2 and I know when he came home, my mum said his character had changed. He certainly had a bad temper that mum had never seen before, the smallest thing would make him angry, yet larger problems didn't seem to worry him. Almost as if he could cope with large problems but it was the everyday minutiae which annoyed him. Most of the time he was a very happy extrovert man and although he used to smack me and my brother (as all parents did in the 1940s/50s) I never once saw him hit my mother.
Lizzie
-
Baggygenes i was talking about what was said about the hints of his charachter in joining the regimental police, it probably does take a certain type of charachter and really his father sounded like a person who likes the control and have his own way.
-
There's a Geoffrey Barrowclough born 1925 (mmn Barrowclough) death in 1974 Leeds there's also a second birth registration in 1933 surname Stewart mmn Barrowclough
The first reg was for Geoffrey Stewart mmn Barrowclough in Dewsbury Mar 1925 and again Sep 1933 in Dewsbury
- assume 1933 was when they married and Geoffrey would have had to been reregistered to show his mum married his dad (legally required to do this with my eldest when I married his dad even though he was named on the first bc)
so would also assume a death reg would be under stewart (unless of course he changed his name) - and assuming Geoffrey is deceased
-
Baggygenes i was talking about what was said about the hints of his charachter in joining the regimental police, it probably does take a certain type of charachter and really his father sounded like a person who likes the control and have his own way.
ahh got you - sorry had a blank moment
-
Found this episode informative but personally I would have preferred if there had been some information on Patrick`s mother as well. Although of course for Patrick all he wanted to know was what had happened to his father to make him such a character.
Perhaps as well as suffering from post traumatic stress he also was unable to make the transition into civilian life? Once a soldier always a soldier? I would guess that he was always an angry character who expected to be obeyed and this lead to the domestic violence.
Looking forward to next week!
Sarah
-
I must admit I didn't enjoy this episode at all. It was disappointing after such a promising start with the first two episodes. This one seemed to be an in-depth study into the mindset of one man through an exploration of his career as a wartime soldier. My heart sank halfway through when I realised it was just going to be all about one man.
If the programme was suggesting that Alfred's wartime experiences as a soldier somehow explain his violent, controlling nature towards his family, then I wasn't convinced of that at all. Many men who had similar such wartime experiences were not violent within their own families. I agree with Sarah here that he was probably an angry man long before he was ever a soldier. Perhaps we could have had more info about Alfred's own parents and upbringing and more on Patrick's mother too. There was definitely more to her than met the eye. A little more genealogy might have given Patrick more insight into his father's complex character and we, the viewers, a more rounded and interesting episode to watch!
-
My heart sank halfway through when I realised it was just going to be all about one man.
Yes that is what I mean -it's hardly family history
-
I must admit I didn't enjoy this episode at all. It was disappointing after such a promising start with the first two episodes. This one seemed to be an in-depth study into the mindset of one man through an exploration of his career as a wartime soldier. My heart sank halfway through when I realised it was just going to be all about one man.
If the programme was suggesting that Alfred's wartime experiences as a soldier somehow explain his violent, controlling nature towards his family, then I wasn't convinced of that at all. Many men who had similar such wartime experiences were not violent within their own families. I agree with Sarah here that he was probably an angry man long before he was ever a soldier. Perhaps we could have had more info about Alfred's own parents and upbringing and more on Patrick's mother too. There was definitely more to her than met the eye. A little more genealogy might have given Patrick more insight into his father's complex character and we, the viewers, a more rounded and interesting episode to watch!
That is exactly why so many were shot at dawn in the first world war.
Shell Shock affects different people in different ways the fact that others were not affected has nothing to do with it.
However the program did not diagnose the problem rather it raised the question.
It also raised the question was his training in the army a contributing reason for his treating his family in that way?
There were no excuses given just questions to be considered.
I thought it was one of the better family history programmes better than many of the how far back can we go genealogy programs that make huge leaps of faith.
Cheers
Guy
-
As usual the programme is limited in time and resources and couldn't hope to do everything. I found it fascinating and thoroughly enjoyed it. I only wish that I could have a few of those resources at my disposal though! I'd love to be able to trace my own father's involvement in the 2nd World War. Just how easy is it to access the records and at what cost?
Phil
Hello Phil
Check out this link to MOD web-site.
MOD Link Shortened (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/ServiceRecords/FurtherInformationAboutServiceRecordsHeldByMod.htm)
I applied for my fathers WWII service records last Nov & received a letter back saying it might be a year before they will be aple to reply, but I hope it will be worth the wait.
I hope it's of use to you
Patrick
-
Thank you Patrick.
How much do they charge for this "service" ?
Regards,
Phil
-
Thank you Patrick.
How much do they charge for this "service" ?
Regards,
Phil
Phil - the MOD prioritises requests from service personnel and their surviving spouse/civil partner then those from other people.
From my personal experience in my wider family - earlier this year a request from a widow produced service records within 2-3 weeks free of charge while a request from next of kin (child of person) took 10 months - cost is now £30.
-
I for one enjoyed it, as always. Why do others think we must trace back to William the conqueror and beyond. ;)
It was Patrick's journey, and he needed to resolve some unanswered questions and doubts etc.
How many of us, have put all their dark family secrets into their own trees, or laid them bare for others to peruse and criticise, only to form opinions which are usually wrong.
As for PTSD.......it can happen at any time. I watched my father die in agony, coughing up blood in a hospital bed, and I begged the doctor to overdose him on morphine. With his dosage of pain killer, he was still in agony.
His(my father) death cert only tells some of the truth, and IF the doctor bent to my request, I bless him for it.
So, to some up..........take each program for what it is, and enjoy it. :)
Steve. :)
-
I for one enjoyed it, as always. Why do others think we must trace back to William the conqueror and beyond. ;)
I don't think anyone was saying we must trace back to William the Conqueror. It just would have been interesting to have gone further back than just one generation, that's all. The WDYTYA series is supposed to be about family history and usually covers more than one generation and certainly more than one ancestor in a single programme. I prefer it when it does that. I think the Patrick Stewart episode strayed from the originial remit and hope it isn't a sign of things to come. That's just my opinion. Obviously some people enjoyed it for what it was - I didn't ::)
-
Out of interest has WDYTYA done a single person research before? In my head they did it with Kim Cattrell and her missing Grandfather - but that was a while back I could be wrong.
-
Out of interest has WDYTYA done a single person research before? In my head they did it with Kim Cattrell and her missing Grandfather - but that was a while back I could be wrong.
Hi there, several posts seem to have disappeared from this thread, I'm currently lost! :)
-
several posts seem to have disappeared from this thread
I cut several post out as they were getting too personal and speculative about Patrick Stewart and some were getting personal about other contributors on this topic.
regards,
Bob
-
Maggie, these programmes are made for money, Patrick's brother looked a bit uncomfortable, presumably he still lives in the area and there could be people who know more about the family, but I'm sure he would be getting a cheque as well. Why else would you do this.
There were 3 brothers. Geoffrey b1925, Trevor, & Patrick b1940
The brother we saw at the end was Trevor
The one whose parentage had been in question was Geoffrey. Although it was never actually stated that he had died, Patrick seemed to speak about him in the past tense. Linda
Skoosh, fair point.
Linda, you're right I hadn't picked up that it was a different brother shown at the end.
And as Bucksboy commented, it was 'Patrick's journey'. At least the producers will know that it provoked some lively debate, and I suppose if the programmes were all the same the great viewing public who aren't all family history-fixated might get jaded.