RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Colin D Gronow on Tuesday 02 October 12 11:54 BST (UK)
-
Postponed from October 3 Now on on Wed. 10th October.
http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/sdj5f/who-do-you-think-you-are--celia-imrie
I was looking forward to watching this tommorrow, so I hope its worth the wait. Hopefully it promises to trace her family back to the 17th century.
-
Why has it been postponed?
-
BBC1 now showing Panorama - Britain's Secret Health Tourists instead?! :(
-
That's not as important as WDYTA. ::) ::) Oops WDYTYA.
-
Awwww that was my birthday treat too, I was allowed to watch it downstairs rather than upstairs in bed!!!
-
At least it's not been postponed due to football ! ,
-
Wonder what's so important about Panarama that they can't wait three more weeks for??
-
Strange things happen during party political conferences ;)
-
What a disappointment - was looking forward to my weekly treat!
Moderator comment: topic locked since there is still a week to go before transmission and really, there is nothing to discuss about the programme itself at present. ;) Will unlock next week
-
The most boring episode I can recollect
History of two aristocratic ancestors and no family research at all!
-
As I've spent the last week researching ancestors from the 1600s and 1500s I quite enjoyed it, especially as it appears that my G Grandfather x 9 was a political figure (of the religious kind) working for Charles II
It's not often on WDYTYA we get history this far back - I liked it
-
Quite enjoyed the stories but it was more a BBC history magazine article than a family history programme!
Would have liked to see her prove that she was actually descended from that line on the family tree she saw at the beginning by doing some family history instead of just taking it as read.
Kerry ::)
-
It was not a RESEARCH programme, but a darned interesting HISTORY programme.
Still I enjoyed that side of it. Interesting to get a close up(!) of people that were in School History lessons.
However that is NOT why I watch wdytya ... that i watch .... for the actual research and discovery. Seeing how to trace things that are seemingly nowhere to be found.
xin
-
I have ancestors who were knights and lords way back in the 13th-17th centuries and I kept wondering how I could meet those researchers and see if there was anything interesting to find out about them. ;D
Lizzie
-
I had to slap myself to avoid falling asleep about half an hour in, but it did get quite exciting towards the end. It won't rate in my top-10 WDYTYA programmes.
-
The most boring episode I can recollect
History of two aristocratic ancestors and no family research at all!
Well done Petros, you summed it up in a nutshell!
And ...
Quite enjoyed the stories but it was more a BBC history magazine article than a family history programme!
Would have liked to see her prove that she was actually descended from that line on the family tree she saw at the beginning by doing some family history instead of just taking it as read.
Kerry ::)
I agree, Kerry. Whilst the stories were "quite interesting" I kept wondering how authentic the family connection was which kind of spoilt it for me. Also, why would you be proud to be a descendant of a woman who conspired to kill someone? Beyond me I'm afraid!
-
I turned it off.
By the time anyone gets back that far there's very little genetic connection; a tiny bit from each of about 1034 ancestors. It's a bit too remote for me to get interested in.
-
Quite enjoyed the stories but it was more a BBC history magazine article than a family history programme!
Would have liked to see her prove that she was actually descended from that line on the family tree she saw at the beginning by doing some family history instead of just taking it as read.
Kerry ::)
I agree. As a history programme great but otherwise :(
I have ancestors who were knights and lords way back in the 13th-17th centuries and I kept wondering how I could meet those researchers and see if there was anything interesting to find out about them. ;D
Lizzie
She did get around didn't she, the places you can get into with a TV crew are astounding ::) And that desk! we would not be allowed to breathe near it let alone sit at it, oh, and yes, you may touch the seal but not the manuscript :o
-
I turned it off.
By the time anyone gets back that far there's very little genetic connection; a tiny bit from each of about 1034 ancestors. It's a bit too remote for me to get interested in.
That is the difference between family history and genealogy.
Cheers
Guy
-
Didn't like this one, after 10 mins all I heard was blah blah blah, couldn't get into it at all, this is one series I won't be buying on dvd to watch again
-
The most boring episode I can recollect
History of two aristocratic ancestors and no family research at all!
I thought it was just me, it was the first programme of WDYTYA in which i found my mind wandering. My OH who usually hates the programme found it interesting though. Perhaps it appealled to a different audience? I was looking forward to it so much because i had read that it went back so far, i think i was expecting to find out how they had traced the lineage rather than just jumping to her ancestors.
-
I wonder if they had checked her family tree at the BBC or did they just accept her piece of paper, It really would have been nice to have just heard how they had managed to trace back, even if just a brief mention. They could have got a lot more information in if they cut out the views of her travelling here and there.
-
I have never before turned off an episode of WDYTYA, but after I'd given it a good 20 mins Grand Designs on C4 got my viewing. It annoyed me from the start when they just plunged in with the history, just accepting what was written down on that bit of paper. I'm sure it was all properly checked out and researched, but I would like to have seen some evidence of it.
As a history programme of the political machinations of the reign of Charles II I'm sure it was fine, but as many have said that's not the reason I like to watch WDYTYA.
By the time anyone gets back that far there's very little genetic connection; a tiny bit from each of about 1034 ancestors. It's a bit too remote for me to get interested in.
Yes, it is interesting to see some peoples thinking - my son is interested in politics, Oh look there is some ancestor 7, 8, 9 generations back who was a bit of a political firebrand, that must be where he gets it from!
-
Yes, it is interesting to see some peoples thinking - my son is interested in politics, Oh look there is some ancestor 7, 8, 9 generations back who was a bit of a political firebrand, that must be where he gets it from!
I thought that was a bit of a stretch of the imagination. Interesting that she said her 18 year old son was a Labour supporter. I'm sure if the family tree her very upmarket cousin gave her was correct, there weren't many socialists amongst them. ::) ::)
-
Does anyone else think last nights program was not really connected to family history. It seemed to go directly back to the 1600s and 10 X great grand parents without covering the intermediate lines of descent.
The information was very emotive and educational when viewed through the eyes of a descendant and it made a vivid lesson in real history. It could make a great history program in it's own right and does bring the period to life for viewers. I have never before felt so close to the realities of that period.
But I still would like to know a bit about all the BMDs down the line as in a normal search even if they are boring which is the usual case.
Humphpaul
-
There's another thread about this topic with other people agreeing with your comment.
www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,617907.0.html
Topics merged
-
I loved the 'upmarket' cousin ... 'my dear, she was on the shelf' .... 'positively dusty !' ;D ;D ;D
But as a programme, I'm sure the BBC wouldn't have just accepted the drawn out family tree she had. Its interesting to learn a bit more about political and social intrigues of the 17th C. They all be in Hello magazine nowadays. All that stuff about lack of carnal copulation .... wow !
I enjoyed this one .... it made a change .... and as for not seeing the paper trail .... well, we saw a different sort of paper trail in various record collections all over London.
-
There was no mention of any research to authenticate the tree she was given - it seems to be a theme of the series that there is no mention of research that would verify "facts" that are the basis of the programme >:( How long would it take to say "genealogists were able to verify the tree that Celia was given by her cousin"?
I found I was "drifiting" more than once during the programme - not the most interesting of the series as far as I was concerned.
I have never before turned off an episode of WDYTYA, but after I'd given it a good 20 mins Grand Designs on C4 got my viewing.
We record both WDTYA & Grand Designs, but watch the WDTYA recording with a short delay so we can stop it to see documents properly, maybe we should have swopped last night!
-
Far too much history, far too little family history, and much too much of Celia Imrie reading aloud.
-
I really enjoyed it! (And yes, more awfully, rahhly middle clarse women please, BBC)
The State papers showing more scandal than Take A Break or Closer would dare print were a revelation too.
-
I'd like to see WDYTYA do O J Borg (the guy who often compares the National Lottery). His real name is Oliver James Borg D'Anastasi.
Sounds intriguing :) Apparently the name has Maltese connections.
-
I must be the only one who found it interesting in that we found lots of places to research that do not often come up - I learned about a couple of new resources last night.
Pat ...
-
we found lots of places to research that do not often come up
We did, but I wonder how accessible they are to the general public.
-
I agree with most of what's been said.
I didn't like the formulaic "and for the next part of the story, we need to go to the .......". It was telling her a story, rather than research. The story itself was interesting, though, and that was a VERY rude poem about her ancestor.
It was interesting that they covered the "Glorious Revolution" in the same week that Michael Portillo tackled some of the myths around this event in the fabulous Radio 4 series "Things we forgot to remember".
-
I've been trying to persuade my wife that family history is fun with lots of detective work and so on. At long last I managed to persuade her to sit down and watch WDYTYA. Boy, did I choose the wrong one. Kiss of death doesn't begin to describe it.
-
All I could think when watching this was - My she has the bare bones details of a really good history book here - sex, scandal and murder all the things you want to make a true life history book.
Notice there was no 'family' there to greet their long lost relative!!!
-
Not sure why, but this episode didn't work for me.
I don't think it was how far back it went, as the Matthew Pinsent episode went back further - connecting him to royalty, Charlemagne, Jesus and God, and that was OK.
Maybe by parachuting Celia in to the 17th century, without any confirmation of her link (on-screen at least) made it feel more like a history show than WDYTYA.
This series has been very contrasting - too many episodes going back just one or two generations, often culminating at WW1 (important though this era is), then this one that jumps straight back over 300 years.
Nevermind, still two more episodes to redeem it.
-
There are two unused scence on line
one discusses her ancestor the Marquis of Granby. The other in another librray full of old manuscripts confirms the tree she was given and picks out additional points on the male line.. The comment on the femal line was amde that its easy to accurately compile tress that descend through baronetcies.
Perhaps the whole episode demosntares the ease of tarcing back any aristocratic ancestry, becuase it is betetr, and more extensively documented.
-
Much of the stuff about the Russell's she could have found out for herself online, interesting though it was.
Her father's family was dismissed as trade and that was that!
Skoosh.
-
'Trade' is usually easier to trace than 'ag.lab' !!
-
Much of the stuff about the Russell's she could have found out for herself online, interesting though it was.
Her father's family was dismissed as trade and that was that!
Yes, I think that was part of the thing that turned me off the programme. I haven't looked, but I'm sure there must have been many books written about Lord Russell and the politics of the time. It would have been more interesting to have discovered something that wasn't well documented.
-
But the history of her family WASN'T all in one book or one record collection .... it was all over London, and the BBC brought it together.
I like this series of programmes; they have been different to the previous series. The only thing I would like to have seen in one or two of the programmes would have been 'the reveal' to stunned members of the celebrities families !
-
Just checked my own books, "Mr Croft, the King's Bastard", Lord William Russell's story is largely contained therein. I had to walk into the next room.
Skoosh.
-
But the history of her family WASN'T all in one book or one record collection .... it was all over London, and the BBC brought it together.
My point entirely Lydart, I found it interesting in that there were so many places around London to find yet more records.
Pat ...
-
But the history of her family WASN'T all in one book or one record collection .... it was all over London, and the BBC brought it together.
I didn't say that the history of her family was all in one book, only that the story of Lord Russell, on which the first section of the programme concentrated probably was, as Skoosh has confirmed. The information may have been in different collections all over London, but they were just recreating what had already been done by someone who wrote a book about it. If you have an interest in that part of history all well and good, but for me it departed from the "discovery" angle of WDYTYA.
-
My point entirely Lydart, I found it interesting in that there were so many places around London to find yet more records.
Pat ...
Whilst I would agree to a point, it does lessen the interest when you have to be a celebrity with a BBC camera crew in tow to have access to them :-[
-
I must agree that much of this programme resembled a history lesson with far too many passages read aloud by Celia Imrie (poor editing?). Although I imagine that there would have been a great deal of research done which wasn't shown, it would have been more interesting to see how the family was traced. It comes back to poor editing to me. It really feels as though the producers have been told to find a different angle for this series, and have chosen to concentrate on specific ancestors or periods of history to the exclusion of others. If the aim is to show how ancestors are traced, then the steps you have to take to do this are really not well represented.
As for the tenuous link between Celia's son and his interest in politics, jumping back several centuries to find a politician was a bit of a leap of the imagination. Suppose she had said, "My son is interested in bricklaying." Would they have gone back a couple of centuries to find another brickie?
All in all I am finding this series a bit of a yawn. ::)
Gillg
-
I couldn't agree more.
I always thought it was all about tracing the family tree, the methods of finding them, and the outcome. But on this episode, it homed in on one person, I think it was Celia's Gt.Gt.Gt.Gt.Gt.Gt.Gt.Gt. Grandmother, and never moved from her all night.
Really boring!! ???
-
I don't think Jacobean savants will be agog at any of this. The BBC researchers will be discovering that Henry VIII had marital problems next. We did however discover that Celia has a quite remarkable ability to read early 17th century script ;D and that educated folk pronounce Whig as "Wig".
She is obviously very proud of young Imrie (aspiring MP?) and dismisses the Imrie genes as they never had a bandstand in their honour. His father's genes never rated a mention.
The star was the country cousin who was straight from Central Casting.
Sun's well over the yard-arm, time for a "Wisky".
-
Perhaps they should have looked at the Whitrow family too, as the actor Benjamin Whitrow is Angus' father.
The 'political genes' could come from his father's side of the family ::)
Pat ...
-
.....We did however discover that Celia has a quite remarkable ability to read early 17th century script ....
I noticed that too. There's no way she was reading those papers for the first time, which made me slightly sceptical about the "oohs and ahhs " of surprise. She is a good actor , of course. Apart from niggles about the programme, I thought she came across very well.
-
Perhaps they should have looked at the Whitrow family too, as the actor Benjamin Whitrow is Angus' father.
The 'political genes' could come from his father's side of the family ::)
Pat ...
Yes, I too thought Celia took a lot for granted that her son's interest in politics etc. had come from her 'genes' and not that of his father's. And to pick up a point from Skoosh I also marvelled at Celia's ability to read the paleography. Perhaps it is all in the 'genes' ;)
-
Quote from: Skoosh on Today at 12:31:21
.....We did however discover that Celia has a quite remarkable ability to read early 17th century script ....
Especially when you think how some of the subjects struggle to read perfectly legible modern records.
-
as for not seeing the paper trail .... well, we saw a different sort of paper trail in various record collections all over London.
Would we as 'joe public' have the same kind of access I wonder? and they used some pretty high-brow researchers/historians on this one.
-
This discussion has generated some pretty divergent views.
1. The comment that there was little genealogical proof given. True; but the lines of genealogical proof have been explored in other episodes and, for the general viewer rather than the experienced researcher, there must be a limit to the number of parish registers or census records that can reasonably be shown. I'd agree that the out-take on the genealogy probably deserved a mentionin the final cut.
2. Concentration on one part of history and a very few ancestors. True again (but after previous broadcasts people were bemoaning concentration on a handful of WWI soldiers). However this did explore a variety of sources which really are accessible to the public, e.g the State Papers in TNA's SP series and Lambeth Palace Library, and which provided a story of intrigue which shone a new light on that period of history for me, whether it be that family's history or the way that powerful families interacted in that period. For many of us this is about the farthest back we can get in our family trees, and understanding more of the forces that shaped Early Modern England is hugely helpful.
3. The need to edit into a shade under 60 minutes restricts what can be done, and I think we just have o accept this. To explain how a researcher got to find a particular document might take a very long time and not make riveting television. Also the need to ensure that each section is of broadcastable quality will inevitably cause re-takes of each shot and some rehearsal of the reading of the records. There's an interesting consequence here of using actors as the subjects of the programme.
4. I wonder how many people are researched in outline by the programme and then discarded as possible subjects? Perhaps because their ancestry reaches brick walls, or there isn't a story to discover that might make good TV, or because the person being researched already knows too much so can't follow a story of discovery and surprise, or because they simply don't fancy taking part?
-
Quoting an article on Wiki:
The show's producers generally examine 12 celebrities in their planning for a series. After research this is then cut down to 6 by eliminating those whose background is either uninteresting or too close to themes which have already been discussed in past episodes. Michael Parkinson has said that a planned episode about his ancestors was discontinued after six weeks when genealogists failed to find anything interesting.
-
Interesting comment on the BNA blog:
http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2012/10/11/who-do-you-think-you-are-the-ancestors-of-celia-imrie-in-the-british-newspaper-archive/
-
Quoting an article on Wiki:
The show's producers generally examine 12 celebrities in their planning for a series. After research this is then cut down to 6 by eliminating those whose background is either uninteresting or too close to themes which have already been discussed in past episodes.
Numbers may differ, as only series 2 (in 2006) featured six celebs. This series has ten.
-
According to Celia Imrie herself answering a question some time ago on her own official website:
'Imrie is an ancient Scots name. My father was from Glasgow. You see the name quite a lot in Glasgow to this day. I probably won't be on Who Do You Think You Are as I already know the family tree on my mother's side, and it's one of those ones which go back to God!'
It did occur to me that she looks an awful lot like the Queen's paternal gran, Queen Mary but nothing seems to have turned up linking her to Germany. Still when they do a drama on the life of Queen Mary, she'll have a headstart!
See photo (wait a few secs because the Queen Mary ship comes up first!)
http://bit.ly/Tmq55z
Notice although she said her son was passionate about politics, it seemed to be all about fundraising, nothing about him being a budding politician or otherwise ...!
-
The hand written tree at the start of the program caught my eye, because I thought I recognised two of my ancestors (Blois and Wingfield) written on the right hand side of what appeared to be two family lines. I now need to try and see if or how these guys connect to the subjects of the program.
I agree this episode was somewhat different to normal and more a history lesson from the Charles II, James II era , however I did still find it very interesting.
-
I thought Celia Imrie's family story made a nice change from the subjects which have been covered too much in recent series.
I also thought seeing those old pamphlets and news reports were fascinating. We might not have access to some of the archives they did but it is good to see sources like this being used. It reminds us how interesting the wider background research can be - and it is just as valid as the more factual BMD genealogical research.
Plus - I started a book last night which is set in the time of James II and I couldn't remember the history of that time and how and why William came to the throne... I was going to google it but this programme saved me the trouble. So thanks WDYTYA ;D ;D
Milly
-
I watched my recording after reading this thread expecting to not enjoy the programme as much as I usually do. Not so, I sat glued to the programme not daring to miss anything.
Most likely because I have always been interested in History the fact the programme picked out two people in a celebrity's tree who in their own days were also well known. It was a complete a change from what we have been used to in WDYTYA.
I kept finding myself thinking 'What happened next?' and at one stage I even wondered if anyone would pick up on the life of Celia's 10 x g.granmother and make a film or tv series of her trials and tribulations.
One thing the programme showed that even with investigating what - at the times - would have been known to a lot of people, the written info of the aristocracy is scattered over a number of places, depending on what happened during their lifetime.
However having said all that I do hope that WDYTYA will get back to 'normal' for the rest of the series :)
Jean
-
I do hope that WDYTYA will get back to 'normal' for the rest of the series :)
I'll be extremely surprised if John Barnes doesn't get a trip to Jamaica out of it. ::)
-
Who was the black personality whose ancestors were slaves and slave owners ? That one was very interesting.
-
I agree Jean, I watched it last night and enjoyed it. I was getting a tad bored with the format of the present series of only going back to grandparents. The second half of the program was definitely the better part.
Come on, how many of us wouldn't like to unearth a juicy bit of gossip about our distant ancestors. Forget the aristocracy bit, its just easier to find records for them than anyone else. Personally, I would be feasting on Lady Frances for weeks :) Even after 400 odd years the public notes about her were more than a tad shocking! paparazzi of their day ;D
This was the whole point of the program, looking for flesh on the bones and not that Celia already had a tree well and truly documented in The Peerage.
Pretty sure next week John Barnes' will be have the usual trip back to Jamaica too....
-
Who was the black personality whose ancestors were slaves and slave owners ? That one was very interesting.
Was that Ainsley Harriott? I think he only acknowledged the ones who were slaves.
-
www.bbc.co.uk/whodoyouthinkyouare/past-stories/ainsley-harriott.shtml
-
Who was the black personality whose ancestors were slaves and slave owners ? That one was very interesting.
Was that Ainsley Harriott? I think he only acknowledged the ones who were slaves.
Yes, I think you're right - thanks :)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/whodoyouthinkyouare/past-stories/ainsley-harriott.shtml
(Danuslave beat me to it ;) )
-
But the history of her family WASN'T all in one book or one record collection .... it was all over London, and the BBC brought it together.
I like this series of programmes; they have been different to the previous series. The only thing I would like to have seen in one or two of the programmes would have been 'the reveal' to stunned members of the celebrities families !
Now that is an idea! :)
I must be easily pleased for I have enjoyed every episode of every series so far. Some more than others, some less than others, but not once did I begrudge it being served to me for entertainment and education.
-
The best WDYTA so far. It got away from the hundrum of family history in the last two hundred years and went back into the really interesting side of the hobby where real research is needed to find the answers.
We need a lot more programs that go back to before 1800 where most of us find research so much more difficult. It would be very useful to have some programs in that period that go beyond the aristocracy.
-
I thought the history lessons in Celias life were great. I am presently looking at someone born
in 1500 and it is so hard to find anyone on the information on line at the moment. You need
the books and trials data that was shown to get anywhere. Luckily the person I am looking
for was a Squire so finding his Knight was the way to go.
I think WDYTYA could resolve some of the moans on our posts about the programme by putting
a note on at the end therefore it wont take the time off the researching part.
I find it unusual that there is no forum for these programmes so that interested ancestry
researchers could listen and talk. Wondered if they dont want to give their clues away to amateurs
as they do charge dont they. I thought if you can Tweet Rookie Blue stars why not WDYTYA ;D
regards Sandymc
-
The whole programme left me wondering:
"WHO do you think YOU ARE!"
-
Maybe the John Barnes programme won't be so straightforward as we may think it's going to be? After all with real family tree research, all sorts of unexpected things can turn up:
' [Bob] Marley’s mother Cedella Malcolm (later Cedella Booker)began her romance with Captain Marley, a colonial supervisor, when he was fifty years old and she was merely seventeen. Norval Marley’s family was made up of white Jamaicans from the parish of Clarendon. He was relocated for work purposes to St. Ann where Cedella had grown up and resided. In a 2003 interview, Michael George Marley revealed “I was told by my mother,grandmother and uncle, that the Marleys were Syrian Jews that migrated from the Middle East to England and then Jamaica. I did research on the surname that showed this to be true.”
And even 'documented' trees can turn out to be false - though perhaps I'm still mulling on my disappointment that Celia Imrie, despite the resemblance, didn't turn out to be related to Queen Mary and really descended from one of the numerous illegitimates from the many German princelings or dukedoms before unification and foisted on a British family complete with a Victorian folly of a family tree! ;) Although, having said that, they didn't trace her father's Glasgow side ;) lol
-
This wee pedigree thing brings to mind Oscar Wilde's view of Burke's Peerage, that it was the greatest work of fiction yet printed in the English language.
Skoosh.
-
Plus - I started a book last night which is set in the time of James II and I couldn't remember the history of that time and how and why William came to the throne... I was going to google it but this programme saved me the trouble. So thanks WDYTYA ;D ;D
Milly
I was ready to throw a cushion at the screen at that point, as yet another of my hobby-horses came up. Unless I'm missing something, they said William of Orange had been invited to take the crown, with his wife Mary, James's daughter, and implied it was purely because he was acceptable politically and was married to Mary.
They never mentioned that William was another of Charles I's grandchildren, as his mother had been Mary, Princess Royal, sister of Charles II and of the dispossessed James. It was Mary who married into the House of Orange and so become William's mother. Once the decision had been taken to disallow James VII and II, wasn't William the nearest male heir to the Stewarts as the son of James's elder sister?
Actually I quite liked the Celia Imrie episode as a change. I agree with a lot of your comments about not showing how the research was done, but then it's only a few weeks since we had the Annie Lennox episode showing step by step research, albeit with a few leaps of faith. As long as they keep a mix up, I wouldn't like to see the episodes all the same, and this series has had variety. Just as long as as they don't do any more like the Patrick Stewart one.
-
Yes, Mary was the one with the claim to the throne. William refused to act as prince consort and they only agreed to take the throne if they could rule as joint monarchs.
The Michael Portillo programme on radio 4 was interesting. The thesis of the programme was that, as Brits, we see the "Glorious Revolution" from a purely British (or more accurately, English) viewpoint. Seen from a European perspective, it looks quite different.
Summarising wildly:
"Traditional version of history". Parliament and the country became worried that James's catholicism was going to drag the country back into the dark days of Queen Mary. A deputation was sent to Holland, inviting Mary and William to take over the throne. William brought a force over, the country rose to support him and James fled. An almost bloodless revolution had occurred and Protestantism was restored to the country.
"Alternative view". The two main European powers at the time were Holland and France, both of whom were squaring up for war with each other and casting about for allies. England was on friendly terms with France, and an alliance was a distinct possibility. William needed to neutralise this possible new enemy. Working with a group of disgruntled Protestants in parliament, he engineered the invitation. Once he received this , he landed with an enormous force, catching James off guard at the wrong side of the country. Realising the inevitability of a military defeat, James fled the country, leaving the country in Dutch hands. London was under Dutch military control for a matter of weeks, whilst William and Parliament rewrote the constitution (amongst other things, making it illegal for a Catholic ever to become monarch). Far from being "bloodless", this shift in the balance of power in Europe led to decades of war on the continent as well as prolonged war and continued grievances to this day in Ireland.
It was a fascinating programme and a good lesson in what happens when you see the same events from a slightly different point of view.
-
Thanks Mike, that was really interesting. Wonder if it's still available to download?
-
The Glorious Revolution was certainly not bloodless in Scotland, the early Jacobite victory by Dundee at Killiecrankie was followed by defeats by Scottish Government forces at Dunkeld & Cromdale. The rebellions on behalf of the exiled Stuarts continued nearly every ten years until 1745.
Ireland was positively awash in the red stuff following William's accession, the effects of which are still with us.
Britain never existed until the Union of 1707 and the Scottish Parliament which regarded James VII as having abdicated, was not necessarily prepared to accept the Hanovarian succession upon a childless Anne's death. The Union was largely a strategem to prevent a French army appearing at England's back door.
Skoosh.
-
Thanks Mike, that was really interesting. Wonder if it's still available to download?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pfr4y/Things_We_Forgot_to_Remember_Series_5_The_Glorious_Revolution/
-
thought this episode was fascinating. going to really miss WDYTYA when this series finishes :'(