RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Colin D Gronow on Wednesday 26 September 12 09:47 BST (UK)
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n2thm
And not a soldier in sight ;) Should I hope be an interesting episode.
-
oh yes that sounds interesting.
Seems the whole series is only concentrating on not going back too far.
-
Let's hope there is no looking at a photo followed by "She looks like a strong/sad/capable/tragic woman." "She must have been."
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n2thm
And not a soldier in sight ;) Should I hope be an interesting episode.
Thank goodness for that, a bit disappointed with this series so far :(
-
Let's hope there is no looking at a photo followed by "She looks like a strong/sad/capable/tragic woman." "She must have been."
Or "He worked as a photographers assistant then a photographer". He must have been really passionate about photography.
-
Surely William Roache was an Army Officer at one time - not WW1 or WW2.
-
I remember thumbing an autobiography of his in a charity shop. On the first page it said he never celebrated his birthday on the date that was on his birth certificate, so he was unsure when it actually was. :)
-
zzzzzzzzzzzz. The most boring episode yet!
-
Well I am not finding it boring ..... I am in floods of tears.... so maybe I am just an old soak, but each to their own.................
xin
-
It does annoy me on WDYTYA that because children are with grandparents etc on census day they start talking about how they must have been brought up by them. Why doesn't anyone point out they might only have been there on that day?
-
I found Zilla an amazing person. Sadly William Roache was just a bore.
-
It does annoy me on WDYTYA that because children are with grandparents etc on census day they start talking about how they must have been brought up by them. Why doesn't anyone point out they might only have been there on that day.
Me too! In 1911 she was living with her parents in Blackpool.
-
Yes I thought that -- it is only written on one day, I felt there was a lot of unjustification, but I will watch it again, without the drama of Bills voice, etc and maybe not worry too much about children packed off all over the place.....
xin
-
It was the 1881 census that annoyed me- They carefully read out that James was a quarryman...ignoring the fact that the census said he was also a grocer - and yes I have checked the census in case I had been seeing things. Why ignore this crucial word grocer ?? made no sense to me.
-
zzzzzzzzzzzz. The most boring episode yet!
??? Wot?!
One of the better episodes!
Had some actual genealogy ;D
Unlike the Patrick Stewart episode - now that WAS boring!
-
I suppose they pick up on certain things as that makes better viewing. It does mean now that William Roache is thinking things about his family that may not necessarily be true.
-
It was the 1881 census that annoyed me- They carefully read out that James was a quarryman...ignoring the fact that the census said he was also a grocer - and yes I have checked the census in case I had been seeing things. Why ignore this crucial word grocer ?? made no sense to me.
I double checked as well; strange to not mention it.
Nanny Jan
-
There were assumptions again, some bits were intersting but the dramatic wows were getting on my nerves. I had more fun going round alton towers on a frightnights event! Going in and out the buildings , the medium and his minders were the irritating ones that night!
-
Let's not forget that (probably!) there is a lot more research going on that gets mentioned in a 1 hour program! ;D
The producer and director are trying to make a TV programme; and entertainment at that, so lots of stuff will be left on the cutting room floor.
But the failure to mention the grocer was indeed a bit strange?
-
It does annoy me on WDYTYA that because children are with grandparents etc on census day they start talking about how they must have been brought up by them. Why doesn't anyone point out they might only have been there on that day.
Me too! In 1911 she was living with her parents in Blackpool.
But the other daughter 'May' is still with her grandmother, Alice, and still described as 'dau' not grand dau.
I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one annoyed by the leaps made and bits ignored. There feels like in this program there should have been another hour of material
-
Was she the daughter that Bill spoke of at the start of the programme, who he believed was only a half-sister or something like that?
I wonder what that was all about?
-
He started off (I thought) by hinting that 'May' might not have been a full sister. So why didn't they get a birth certificate or the baptism (if baptised) to confirm her parentage - and for Roach's mother and other aunt?
Well, obviously, they will have done, and I presume as it wasn't mentioned that they were all legitimate and full, not half sisters, or adopted, or something - and to mention that would have removed the air of mystery.
With the name Waddicor, I could've told them at the start that they were very likely connected to Darwen. It seemed that they were about to start talking about Darwen, but then suddenly changed their minds.
-
It does annoy me on WDYTYA that because children are with grandparents etc on census day they start talking about how they must have been brought up by them. Why doesn't anyone point out they might only have been there on that day?
Not a 3 month old child travelling from Lancashire to Staffordshire! But I agree there is more than one reason why children are in the households of relatives.
Anna
-
I quite enjoyed this one.
I noticed a bad edit when discussing Albert Waddicor with the lady from William Salt Library.
She says "I have a marriage certificate" of his mother and father that shows Albert as a gentleman and I noticed the paternal grandfather William Henry Roache as a doctor and when we looked again the father was a Charles Glover, a Licenced Victualler clearly it must have been a sisters marriage certificate but wasn't mentioned.
I thought I'd had a senior moment! ;D
Beatle
-
What a load of rubbish! Apparently Albert 'loved no-one so was not loved by anyone'. ? He was a drinker, couldn't be trusted with the children etc. ? Err. Evidence please. WDYTYR stick to the facts please.
-
I suppose I have got used to the celeb's imaginings - it didn't bother me
It was a very good episode IMHO, apart from the not doing the basic research - we would have all looked for those sisters early on.
-
It does annoy me on WDYTYA that because children are with grandparents etc on census day they start talking about how they must have been brought up by them. Why doesn't anyone point out they might only have been there on that day?
Not a 3 month old child travelling from Lancashire to Staffordshire! But I agree there is more than one reason why children are in the households of relatives.
Anna
I wondered whether, given the age of the youngest child (only 3 months) and the fact that the two youngest children were in different households, whether Zillah might have been ill after the birth and the two children being looked after by different family members to give her a bit of respite...
Cati
-
The award for the worst hair cut must go to the guy talking about electric medicine I was having a quiet giggle all the time the camera was on him. I agree with everyones comments. Enjoyed the episode a lot, I thought Zilla was an amazing woman and would like to find out even more about her. But why oh why no birth certificates for anyone. Please WDYTYA please show basic steps of evidence to back up census details rather than jump to conclusions. You let yourselves down and give a poor impression on what is supposed to be a quality programme.
Panda
-
I found the whole episode to be full of holes, as previous posters have identified.
I would have loved to see more about Zillah's background. She was obviously a capable lady, where did she get her business acumen from etc? If Albert was such a "waster" why did she remain with him? Although divorce was not easy, she obviously had means and could have left him, she had a career so the issue of supporting herself didn't arise. All sorts of family secrets!
I think the overall standards have dropped in this series. I know it is not meant to be a lesson in how to do genealogy, but I would have thought some accuracy and thoroughness should be included!
Wonder what the unseen footage will include?
-
As other posters have already said, there is only so much that you can fit into a one-hour programme. And Mavals, you must have been in the kitchen making a cup of tea when the programme was dealing with the problems that married women had in business, because they had no rights over their earnings at all, and it was probably easier for Zillah to 'pay off' her husband than to divorce him.
Lastly, if I'm as lucid and agile at 80 as William Roache (if I ever make it!), then I will be a very happy man :)
-
I agree with Panda and Mavals.
Plus, no reference to the Roache side of the family was odd.
More BMD certs would have been interesting 8)
Kooky
-
Be fair!
The programme has to be slow enough so that people not into genealogy can follow (people like William?!).
OTOH there was obviously enough going on to fill 2 or 3 hours of programming.
What information they have found MUST be condensed and edited into a 1 hour programme.
Not an easy choice in choosing what to leave in, and what to leave out.
It was still a huge improvement on the WW1 episodes! ;D
-
Hi all
I don't know if anyone saw the Jonathan Ross show the other week. They had on John Bishop who was talking about his experience of doing the wdytya programme. (I have looked for a utube link but sadly can't find one). But he was very interesting and spoke about the process and about how they explained that they couldn't use all the material they found & filmed and why they followed the path they did. He also made some interesting remarks about those with ancestors from Norfolk! (No he didn't have Norfolk ancestors ;D). Anyway, apparently though at the end of the filming he was presented with a "big box" of information + copies of the show etc. He seemed thrilled to bits with his experience. Now can't wait to see it. :)
-
A few thoughts on last night:
"I couldn't find any redeeming qualities in Albert at all "
(I don't think that census forms list people's qualities, redeeming or otherwise.)
"It was obviously Albert's drinking that caused his children to be taken away"
(No, it's not at all obvious)
"This daughter was in Staffordshire on census day so must have been ripped from her mother's breast and sent away to safety" - only slightly paraphrasing (Huge assumptions here)
"The oldest daughter stayed with them, so obviously she had a much stronger character and was able to stand up to the violence in the household". (No evidence at all)
Perhaps, just perhaps, Zilla hated children. Maybe she was too busy with her business empire to look after her daughters and sent them away as soon as possible. There's no evidence for this, but it's just as plausible a theory.
They never checked to see whether Albert had a criminal record - there may have been a legal reason why he couldn't be listed as proprietor of a licensed premises.
-
I noticed on 1911 census there had been another WADDICOR child who died - probably James Albert (1900).
-
A few thoughts on last night:
I think the conclusions were made from the 'bigger picture', which I don't think were far from the mark. Despite Zilla's obvious business talents, there was no women's equality, and Zilla obviously realised that if she divorced Albert, he would get all her money, and her children, and the publicity would wreck her business. Cruelty would be a difficult thing to prove in a divorce court. I agree that it's very easy to jump to conclusions from census records, but all the evidence presented seemed to suggest that Albert was probably a drinker and possibly a wife-beater. She paid him off, which at the time was the smart thing to do.
The only thing that they should have presented was Albert's death certificate, which could have shown a drink-related cause of death.
-
The Genealogist have done a good job in collating all the facts....
http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/wdytya2012_roache.php
-
Zillah was said to be travelling abroad on all those trips ALONE, but nobody thought that Albert might have been behind the camera, taking the pictures.
-
As an aside, did anyone notice that the researcher that William Roache met in the pub had also featured on BBC's 'Heir Hunters' ?
-
I liked this episode very much and was fascinated by "Zillah". I guess she could of got her work ethic and business acumen from her parents - her father was a farmer and some of them are canny businessmen.
I didn't think there was anything particularly unusual the three girls being in separate homes in 1901. If Zillah was the brawn behind the business as was implied she really would not have had the time to look after three little ones.
For all his drinking Albert managed to outlive Zillah by 5 years so his health maybe wasn't affected that much. They both left the same amount, about £6,000 she in a will, him without.
-
He also made some interesting remarks about those with ancestors from Norfolk! (No he didn't have Norfolk ancestors ;D).
OK I'll ask. What did he say please
-
A few thoughts on last night:
"I couldn't find any redeeming qualities in Albert at all "
(I don't think that census forms list people's qualities, redeeming or otherwise.)
"It was obviously Albert's drinking that caused his children to be taken away"
(No, it's not at all obvious)
"This daughter was in Staffordshire on census day so must have been ripped from her mother's breast and sent away to safety" - only slightly paraphrasing (Huge assumptions here)
"The oldest daughter stayed with them, so obviously she had a much stronger character and was able to stand up to the violence in the household". (No evidence at all)
Perhaps, just perhaps, Zilla hated children. Maybe she was too busy with her business empire to look after her daughters and sent them away as soon as possible. There's no evidence for this, but it's just as plausible a theory.
They never checked to see whether Albert had a criminal record - there may have been a legal reason why he couldn't be listed as proprietor of a licensed premises.
Well, perhaps after spending nearly all his working years (and beyond) in a soap opera, he thinks that real life runs along the same dramatic and unbelievable storylines.
He was a touch annoying. I can't understand why he'd never seen any of the family photographs before either.
-
in Zillah's will probate goes to Florence, Hester and Albert, no mention of May. Albert is described as a retired caterer.
-
My thoughts on Albert were that he was a 'silent' partner in the business. Also if he had a criminal record, and judging by his misdemeanours in his youth not that unlikely, he would have then been inelligable to hold a licence to sell any alcohol.
I feel that as said before, there should have been the birth certs of all 3 daugthers to look at and a bit more in depth work on Albert, I was more than a little intrigued about him.
Also if the girls were brought up seperately, how come they were all in the same photo as teenagers??
And the foreign travel, maybe as a 'silent' partner Albert ran the business while Zillah was off gallavanting around and maybe he just did not want to go abroad, not that uncommon in those days. And although not smiling in the photo of them at Alton Towers, he hardly looked like a degenerate drunk. Anyone who knows someone who has a big drink problem would have looked at the photo of Albert and thought as I did 'that is not the face of someone with a serious drink problem'.
Many women at this time if they had a business such as a shop etc., did leave their husbands, I know I have several in my family. But Zillah & Albert did stay together, so I think there was more to this story than we have seen. Also who is to say that Zillah did not tell her girls 'bad' things about their father out of spite?
Was not looking forward to this one as I am not a soap fan, but overall found it OK.
My only gripe the same as others, we have been left with far too many unanswered questions and the answers to some which were given seemed to be pure fantasy....
-
The children had to be left with relatives because Zillah was trying to keep the business afloat and Albert was working away from home to help support them. What evidence was there of his bad character and his drinking other than family hearsay that may have been a corruption of his employment.
The assumption in this programme were the worst in the whole series and had me screaming at the television.
-
So, you've seen ALL the documentation that the researchers found?
And not just what they had time to show? ;D
These shows are like icebergs - you only get to see a fraction of what was found out!
-
Be fair!
The programme has to be slow enough so that people not into genealogy can follow (people like William?!).
OTOH there was obviously enough going on to fill 2 or 3 hours of programming.
What information they have found MUST be condensed and edited into a 1 hour programme.
Not an easy choice in choosing what to leave in, and what to leave out.
It was still a huge improvement on the WW1 episodes! ;D
I went to a talk by Nick Barrett last week: he told us that WDYTYA ususally ends up with ten hours of film out of the 100 hours shot for each show, which has then to be further edited down to one hour.
-
I do realise that there is more footage and research that we don't see, but I felt that Bill Roache had a preconceived idea in his head about Albert and nothing was going to change that. Therefore all the info was interpreted with that slant in mind.
Have checked lancs bmd, and Zillah's maiden name is given on Lavinia's birth cert. So unless Albert' s dad had an affair with ZIllah and Lavinia is their child, I guess that 'dau' on the census is either a mistake or they informally adopted Lavinia.
-
I went to a talk by Nick Barrett last week: he told us that WDYTYA ususally ends up with ten hours of film out of the 100 hours shot for each show, which has then to be further edited down to one hour.
I wonder if there is any scope then of the producers changing the format slightly and rather than 10 episodes of 10 celebs, we have 10 episodes following say 3 celebs and going into a wee bit more detail. Plenty of scope for cliff hangers I would have thought, and by following 3 stories at the same time then it breaks it up slightly (although we would have to have the annoying recap dialogue everytime we changed celebs because producers seem to be convinced that the public have the memory of a goldfish)
-
[quote author=Spidermonkey link=topic=617042.msg4659041#msg4659041
I wonder if there is any scope then of the producers changing the format slightly and rather than 10 episodes of 10 celebs, we have 10 episodes following say 3 celebs and going into a wee bit more detail. Plenty of scope for cliff hangers I would have thought, and by following 3 stories at the same time then it breaks it up slightly (although we would have to have the annoying recap dialogue everytime we changed celebs because producers seem to be convinced that the public have the memory of a goldfish)
Very interesting for those of us with an interest in genealogy.
Zero interest for Joe Public! There wouldn't be another series!! ;D
And, yes, the general public seem to have a very small attention span!
Ask anyone in marketing! ;D
-
Niggles and moans aside, we're lucky to have a TV series that deals with our hobby.
-
True ::) ;D
oh well, maybe one day they'll do a WDYTYA marathon night, with unseen footage from some of the most interesting stories
-
[quote author=Spidermonkey link=topic=617042.msg4659041#msg4659041
I wonder if there is any scope then of the producers changing the format slightly and rather than 10 episodes of 10 celebs, we have 10 episodes following say 3 celebs and going into a wee bit more detail. Plenty of scope for cliff hangers I would have thought, and by following 3 stories at the same time then it breaks it up slightly (although we would have to have the annoying recap dialogue everytime we changed celebs because producers seem to be convinced that the public have the memory of a goldfish)
Very interesting for those of us with an interest in genealogy.
Zero interest for Joe Public! There wouldn't be another series!! ;D
And, yes, the general public seem to have a very small attention span!
Ask anyone in marketing! ;D
The this last series has been created to "sell on" rather than our enjoyment. See how the sections are broken up to make adding adverts easier and the next section an overview of the last and repeatative all the way through. The dumbing down production is awful.
William Roache's story had all the makings of being great viewing, he is a likeable and watchable actor which I though would add to the enjoyment of episode but there were errors and lots of padding where they could have added some good facts. Slightly better than the last few but so far I have fallen asleep through 3 episodes of the this series which I've never done before ::)
And to think they thought Parkinson too boring, I can almost hear him and June Whitfield grumbling from here ;D
-
Alberts employment on the 1901 , looks like cycle dealer then O.D. 10/10 ??Any idea's?
-
Alberts employment on the 1901 , looks like cycle dealer then O.D. 10/10 ??Any idea's?
Yes, that's what it says. The last bit is the Occ. classification code, added later.
-
Sounds like a lot of us were either shouting at the TV or at least grumbling internally about the apparent "leaps of faith" in this episode. As someone who has family from Staffs I wondered why they showed the census & marriage certificate at the William Salt Library when it is the Archives (virtually next door) that has census access & parish registers (though this copy of the cert had been issued by the registrar at Cheadle).
As I record the programme I went back to the point at which the marriage certificate of William Roache's parents was shown & one of the witnesses was, I think, Lillian Radcliffe Stanier - presumably one of the family that William's mother was with on 1901 Census night. Incidentally Leigh, Staffs, where the Staniers were in 1901 is close to Alton and was where Zillah was from (not sure that was mentioned).
I know the series is aimed at a wider audience beyond keen family historians, but this particular season seems to have had more unexplained leaps & assumptions than previous ones - a little more in the voiceover could go a long way to making it clear the "other research has shown..." even if the footage to support it can't be shown.
-
A few thoughts on last night:
I think the conclusions were made from the 'bigger picture', which I don't think were far from the mark. Despite Zilla's obvious business talents, there was no women's equality, and Zilla obviously realised that if she divorced Albert, he would get all her money,
Nick,
Not exactly correct. The law was changed a long time before Zilla had her businesses and as such she kept all her money and Albert had no control over it. This was explained twice I believe on the program.
Have to say this series as disappointed totally for its lack of content, its research procedure and its jumping to conclusions. It is following the state of Time team that once it as a major following and can be sold the format is changed to fit other countries ideals, in this case the US market I believe. If it doesn't improve I wont be watching again.
-
Did anyone else notice how the speech seemed to be heavily edited. I've been noticing that a lot recently and it really bugs me!!....
Wasn't a bad episode I thought, in what hasn't been the best series by any means.
-
Sounds like a lot of us were either shouting at the TV or at least grumbling internally about the apparent "leaps of faith" in this episode. As someone who has family from Staffs I wondered why they showed the census & marriage certificate at the William Salt Library when it is the Archives (virtually next door) that has census access & parish registers (though this copy of the cert had been issued by the registrar at Cheadle).
I wondered about that as well; unless they had filmed other footage in the William Salt which was subseqently cut, I presume that the William Salt is - well, just more photogenic than Stafford RO...
Cati
-
As an aside, did anyone notice that the researcher that William Roache met in the pub had also featured on BBC's 'Heir Hunters' ?
I wondered wby he looked so familiar.
-
in Zillah's will probate goes to Florence, Hester and Albert, no mention of May. Albert is described as a retired caterer.
I think this is more of a clue to the fact that May might only have been a half sister of Florence and Albert. Perhaps May was Albert's sister not his daughter. I wonder why they didn't get her birth certificate to prove whether or not the family story was true.
-
Maybe they did get the certificate, but it didn't make the final cut?
Perhaps William Roache had some editorial control, and was embarassed by what was found?
Unless you have access to ALL the research notes and documents, you simply don't know what was actually found! ;D
-
I wonder why they didn't get her birth certificate to prove whether or not the family story was true.
Mother's maiden name registered as RATCLIFFE
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0rec/
-
Oh maybe Zilla didn't leave anything to May because she'd already got her grandfather's money.
-
I had a friend who was brought up by his aunt in the 30s, he had full contact with his parents and siblings but said it was quite frequent and accepted that in a big family, some children would be brought up by relatives. He was very matter-of-fact about it. I'm not aware that this man's wife, children or grandchildren complained that 'he couldn't show love as he'd been brought up without any' (paraphrasing from last night - re William Roache's mother.) I know that Zillah and Albert didn't have a large family so it isn't the same situation as my friend described but maybe she wasn't maternal? Had post-natal depression? etc. etc. perhaps that's where Mrs Roache got the 'not showing love' attitude from.
I agree with all the criticisms made by other posters! The assumptions are very tiresome and seem to be getting worse in each episode.
-
Oh maybe Zilla didn't leave anything to May because she'd already got her grandfather's money.
Yes I agree here.
I liked the show. I liked the films and photos of Blackpool and Alton Towers - the crowds!
The assumptions were based on what he had seen and heard as a child. Looking at the documentation, there was some support for this - the 'gentleman', the children being separated; the will with little for Albert. He knew his mother hadn't liked her father and what she blamed it on.
Zillah had no occupation on the censuses shown and I'm not sure but did she not move to Alton Towers until 1920s? Her children would be adult by that time. Perhaps, she did have problems when they were youngsters - we just don't know.
I tried this morning to look at the various branches and generations of William Roache's family and got tangled up! Mainly because I kept thinking Zillah was his mother.
I like the concentration on just a couple of people - I think that there would be quite a few glazed expressions if a few people were traced.
-
It was different; it was interesting; but somewhat boring. I hadn't heard the name Zillah before, so at the start wondered if we might see some Jewish ancestry ? But not.
Last weeks was the best so far. I'm hoping Celia Imrie will be the best .... we'll see !
-
It was different; it was interesting; but somewhat boring. I hadn't heard the name Zillah before, so at the start wondered if we might see some Jewish ancestry ?
My sister's name is Zillah, and we are C of E. Apparently when she was born my mother named her and my father said 'is it a name?'. Such is life! Anna
-
Maybe they did get the certificate, but it didn't make the final cut?
Perhaps William Roache had some editorial control, and was embarassed by what was found?
Unless you have access to ALL the research notes and documents, you simply don't know what was actually found! ;D
I went to a talk by Nick Barratt about the making of WDYTYA; the celebrity was not allowed editorial control when he was involved with the programme.
Nanny Jan
-
Zillah is a Hebrew girl name. The meaning of the name is `Shadow, Shade or shadow protection` The name Zillah is mainly used in the bible and in English.
Zillah (zil'u) , in the Bible, a wife of Lamech.
Thank you, Mr Google !! But it is a 'jewish' name !!
-
He also made some interesting remarks about those with ancestors from Norfolk! (No he didn't have Norfolk ancestors ;D).
OK I'll ask. What did he say please
Found it! You need to start the tape at about 12:51 into the clip. Thats where he starts to talk about his wdytya experience!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzA9DeBejq4
-
Thank you for the link.
Knew I shouldn't have looked ::) John Bishop and his scandalous slur
-
Well! :o That's put Norfolk people firmly in their place then..... ::)
-
I enjoyed the programme if only because it was different.
Don't forget those of us commenting here have got a bit of a head start on 'joe public' where researching is concerned.
I had a friend who was brought up by his aunt in the 30s, he had full contact with his parents and siblings but said it was quite frequent and accepted that in a big family, some children would be brought up by relatives.
I was told a story by a lady who was one of twelve children born between 1893 and 1912. They had aunts and uncles and other extended family close by, sometimes one or other of the children would nip around the corner and stay with auntie for a few days...if only to get a bit of peace from siblings :D
-
Not one, but two census' state that May was Alice's daughter. She would've been in her 40s when May was born so not inconceivable...but more likely that Albert (by the description of his character) had been playing away...and the resultant child's dubious parentage swept under the carpet....conjecture, I know! But again something didn't quite add up.
Did think that May had a decidedly darker complexion that that of her sisters :-X While Bill himself thought at the start of the program that May was not a "full" sister. If anything, my Genealogy has certainly taught me there's no smoke without fire!
I enjoy all of these episodes (some more than others obv.!), but did find that Bill LOVED the sound of his own voice, and didn't let the experts speak and display their expertise...but that could be all in the editing!!
-
My ggg grandmother was a Zillah & came from a family of Obadiahs, Kerenhappuchs etc as well as the more usual Henry, Joseph, Elizabeth etc.
I sometimes think that at times our ancestors asked the vicar for suggestions for names...
My Zillah was more commonly known as Priscilla.
-
There were a fair number of Waddicors around in Lancashire in the 19th century and seemingly coming from around Darwen but what about the 18th century? Where did they come from originally and what does the name mean?
Phil
-
Where did they come from originally and what does the name mean?
Same as WHITTAKER (allegedly) http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Waddicor
-
Did somebody have an exceptionally bad cold when they got married? How does 'Whit...' become 'Wadd...'?
Phil
-
Just a strong Lamcashire accent!! ;D ;D
-
Reaney's Dictionary of English surnames lists Edmund de Wadeker 1275 and origins as "dweller by the field where woad was grown" or Waddicar, Woodacer, Lancs and Weddiker, Cumb. When I came across Waddicor first I assumed it must be a derivation of Whittaker but I haven't found any of my Lancashire Whittakers having an alternate spelling as Waddicor back to the 18th century. If it is the same name I think it must have been an early split as they seem to be quite distinct, claytonbradley
-
Children being brought up by their grandparents was alive an well in my family in the 1920/30/40s
My mother was born in Ireland, her parents seperated so she was brought up in Ireland by her mothers parents, whilst her mother came to England where she eventually started a 2nd family, but Mum stayed in Ireland, she was 24 before she ever lived with her mother.
My father although living with his parents always said he was brought up by his mothers parents (who lived with them) as he was always with them as his own parents had to work. I know he was very close to his grandfather.
-
Thanks for your contribution Clayton - that sounds far more convincing.
Concerning woad have a look at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isatis_tinctoria
Phil
-
I received an e-mail this morning informing me that this topic had been split into 2 or more topics.View what remains here. I am, but where is the rest? ??? What is the title?
Kooky
-
I split off a lot of conjecture and speculative guesswork as it was getting contentious.
This topic is about the TV program and your opinions about it, not about unasked for, speculative family history.
Please stay on topic,
Thanks,
Bob
ps. I had added this explanation before, but it seems to have "lost in transit". Sorry.
-
OK!
Kooky
-
ps. I had added this explanation before, but it seems to have "lost in transit". Sorry.
Bob, you had added it to another thread, where the same thing was happening
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,616063.msg4662469.html#msg4662469
-
Oooops :)
-
... the format is changed to fit other countries ideals, in this case the US market I believe.
You never know ... After all, WDYTYA USA was cancelled by NBC after the 3rd season due to 'bad' viewing figures.