RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Colin D Gronow on Tuesday 16 October 12 15:10 BST (UK)
-
"John Barnes learns of the role his grandfather played in Jamaica's struggle for self-rule."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zlcst
Can this episode improve on the previous one's this series? Not sure, I'm holding out for next weeks "John Bishop"
-
first time I've failed to get engrossed in an episode of WDYTYA - Even my laptop froze/went to sleep several times while it was on. :-X
-
BBC have just announced John Bishop episode will be shown later in the year. Found this one slow going at times.
Panda
-
Beginning to think this prog has played itself OUT as far as I am concerned anyway !!!
xin
and forgive me..... but who is John bishop?!!m no idea...
???
-
Skipped through it, boring boring boring, dvd sales are going to be terrible this series, I wouldn't watch any of them again
-
John Bishop is a comedienne from Liverpool
Regards Panda
-
I agree that this was boring. In fact the whole series has been poor. Too much social history and not much genealogy. I'm sure most of the content could have been Googled.
-
Sadly I found this episode very boring - and the so-called background demented pianist really bugged me - Mark Strong the narrator has such a wonderful voice and at times his voice was almost drowned out.
-
I turned it off. :-\
-
and forgive me..... but who is John bishop?!!m no idea...
???
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-08-15/whats-coming-up-on-who-do-you-think-you-are
Last one on the page.
Nanny Jan
-
Odd, but I thoroughly enjoyed this one and found interesting parallels with my own research. Different country and different times but finding out the contribution made by family members to the development of their society is what, to me, makes family research exciting, rather than just a process of collecting names and dates.
And I don't agree that it could all have been done by google. Some of it could, if you already knew that these people had made a significant contribution and knew enough detail to know exactly what to put into the google search. But the people you knew, or knew of, just as family in your early childhood may well have had a public role in life that was viewed and possibly remembered by others in a very different way. Checking for such things as newspaper articles to enhance your family history research sounds like a great idea but, with names that are not particularly unusual, you need to gather more details before this can be fruitfully applied.
After all the complaints about the show becoming so repetitive, I have found it refreshing that all those predictions that we would be revisiting all the same themes again have proved unfounded. I do agree that in focussing on the padding, rather than the building, of the tree, this series seems to have skipped over the basic principles a little too much, but it is certainly showing a much broader variety of sources than some previous series.
-
Thought this was excellent. John Barnes was told he should be very proud of his folk but he was anyway.
Skoosh.
-
Unfortunately, this obsession with only looking at two individuals in one line of a family tree is social history not geneology. :( It was an interesting programme about Jamaica's break from English Rule and the rise of the PNP in Jamaica. But... as a programme billed to be all about tracing John Barnes' family tree it fell short so I can understand why some on this thread found it boring. I wanted to know why Stephen Hill, his great grandfather had the money to own and race thoroughbred horses and rise to be assistant editor of the Daily Gleamer. The fact that we were never told has me wondering... ;) Hopefully someone can shed some light on Stephen's ancestry.....
MH
-
I know they had only a limited time but they could have gone back another generation and looked at some certificates etc while they were at the archives just to bring the focus of the programme back to the genealogy strand the series is supposed to follow. I love the social history side as well but feel this series has not been balanced in including both sides of discovering a persons family history.
Regards panda
-
I enjoyed it too, but then again I've enjoyed quite a few that have generally got slated on here in recent weeks. ;D
I get the impression after nine series that they're trying to show that there is more to genealogy than the names, dates and the usually available documents, perhaps to appeal to a wider audience that has seen some of the preceeding series but not been particularly engaged. I'm sure I'll get slated for saying this but ....
After several of the recent series becoming somewhat stale, it's been interesting to see a change in emphasis on content. OK some have worked better than others, but at least they have tried something different.
Unfortunately, as with so many things, you can't please everybody all of the time. ::)
-
I think for a lot of people this programme was instrumental in introducing people to genealogy in the first place.
In earlier series it needed to put all of the various steps required to trace a family tree into the programme.
I believe that in many cases they now feel that this has been established so many times that they can now show the results without the methodology of getting there. If you look at the BBC page for WDYTYA the links are to Family History rather than genealogy and it is classified within the Genre of Factual > Life Stories and by Format : Documentaries.
I know a lot of people have complained about this series on these boards but would be interested if any one has complained to the BBC and if so what the responce has been.
Does anyone know if the shows makers are aware of these boards or their thoughts on the complaints.
I was not a particular fond of tonight's episode either but that was only because I found the pace slow and the subject not that interesting but as a whole I have liked this series maybe because I no longer expect it to try and teach me how to do things and can just enjoy the programme.
-
John Bishop is a comedienne from Liverpool
Regards Panda
She will be pleased to read that!
-
I wonder why they've decided to show the John Bishop one later in the year and not next week?
Lizzie
ps. I got bored with John Barnes episode. I didn't like the way he kept reading out bits of reports etc. and then being shown something else. It might have made sense to him but it meant nothing to me and I'm only a bit wiser about Jamaican history after that programme. As others have said, we never learned how his g.grandfather came to be associate editor of a newspaper and race horses etc. especially as John Barnes said he didn't have any money.
-
This discussion echoes some of what was said about the preceding episode. In the end a programme which merely digs back generation by generation and builds a family tree would be pretty tedious - unless it reveals a surprise link somewhere. Exploring some interesting members of a family - interesting for whatever reason - is the key.
In this case we were given an insight into the effects of an independence movement on a family, and of the family on the independence movement. And despite the fairly large West Indian population in the UK, we hear rather little of their struggle for independence and much more of other colonies, ranging from America to India to Kenya. The special thing here was that the history was very much more recent, indeed within the lifetimes of a good proportion of the audience. In that context the blending of documentary research, newspapers, and personal interview was pleasing to see.
And the experts that John Barnes met were all people who could have been located by any RootsChat member and I imagine would have responded to an email or written request for information.
-
Blame I pad for the miss spelling of John Bishops profession, I was in a hurry to get the information on as soon as I heard it announced. If you remember there was a gap before they showed the Cilia Imerie episode so they got out of sinc then. Now the new Michael Palin series is scheduled to start and there is no space for the last in the series too be shown. Hopefully they can squeeze it in over Christmas.
Regards panda
-
Unfortunately, this obsession with only looking at two individuals in one line of a family tree is social history not geneology. :( It was an interesting programme about Jamaica's break from English Rule and the rise of the PNP in Jamaica. But... as a programme billed to be all about tracing John Barnes' family tree it fell short so I can understand why some on this thread found it boring. I wanted to know why Stephen Hill, his great grandfather had the money to own and race thoroughbred horses and rise to be assistant editor of the Daily Gleamer. The fact that we were never told has me wondering... ;) Hopefully someone can shed some light on Stephen's ancestry.....
MH
Me too, I felt that a few minutes could have been spent explaining just how Stephen Hill came by his position and status. Not an episode that I'd want to watch again.
-
Really disappointed with John Barns WDYTYA last night, was so boring, as was Celia Imrie, and Hugh Laurie, just never got going, as most folks are saying, not enough family history, more of a history lesson, was like being in class at school, and waiting for the hometime bell to ring, dont get me wrong, i love history, was my fave subject at school, but i think in this series, they have not focused on the core of family tree's, the interesting stuff, loved Alex Kingstons, and her great granny's naughty profession, we all love a Skelly in the cupboard stuff...lol, ah well, just John Bishop now, and dont know when that will be, i reckon his will be a good one.
-
Hugh Laurie ........... did I miss that one? Or was it Hugh Dennis?
Nanny Jan
-
Hugh Laurie ........... did I miss that one? Or was it Hugh Dennis?
Nanny Jan
It was Hugh Dennis who had the story about both his maternal and paternal grandfathers surviving WW1
-
Boring, boring. My favourite from this seriies was Greg Wallace.
Totally annoyed that last in series is being delayed until later this year, does not make sense. I shall email BBC and post their reply.
-
SO BORING !!!
WDYTYA is supposed to be a program about family history (or at least that's what the web site suggests), not social history !
There's only been about 2 programmes this series that fell into that category. And now they're making us wait for the John Bishop episode.
BBC - get a grip ! >:(
-
Missed this so will be watching iplayer
-
I suppose they're delaying transmission of John Bishop if they don't have enough material to bore us with, Barnes was boring last night
-
They went from the best programme ever (Celia Imrie) last week to the worst (John Barnes), this week.
-
WDYTYA is supposed to be a program about family history (or at least that's what the web site suggests), not social history !
And mainly socialist social history ::) or is all social history socialist?
-
Unfortunately - the BBC - thinks this programme is and entertaining programme.
As WDYTYA title suggest this.
So it has gone from looking for our ancestors to filling in what they did, at various times in they lives.
Did you notice that they was no dates of birth etc in John Barnes story last night.
Yes it was boring because most of us could not relate to his history as it happened over the pond.
In other programmes we all have WW1 WW" ancestors etc etc.
So as others have said the BBC needs to return to basics and that is look down the lines gic=ve details of how to find people and then branch out - because not evenone who watches WDYTYA are experts like the programme makers like to think we are as new people are joining our excellent hobby every day.
-
Totally annoyed that last in series is being delayed until later this year, does not make sense. I shall email BBC and post their reply.
Acknowledgement from BBC who hope to respond within 10 days. I shall post their reply when I receive it.
-
Sorry to say another episode where I drifted off. At one level - the lead up to Jamaican independence - it was interesting, but I found the repeated "reading out aloud" of articles & documents lost my attention. If it had been my family I'd have been engaged as John Barnes obviously was, but to me as a viewer it didn't engage.
I wonder whether the insertion of the Panorama programme into the usual WDTYA slot mid-series & consequent delay to the broadcast of the last episode may be a signal that viewing figures are down? Perhaps the BBC will "demote" is back to BBC2 (or even BBC4) if they continue.
-
It was disappointing. I found it more watchable than last week, but like others have said I feel they missed a big trick in not exploring how Stephen Hill was able to rise to the position that he did. I suppose given that it was such recent history it did at least attempt to answer the question posed in the title of the programme. It is much more likely that the ethos of his greatgrandfather and grandfather were passed down to him.
-
Found the programme, and the series as a whole, a bit of a "curates egg". There does seem to be more social history rather than genealogy - but equally, our families lived through these times and it could have impacted on their daily lives. Whenever I find a significant historical date in my ancestors details, I do wonder what they thought about, for example, the French Revolution. Did they know about it? did they sympathise? Or the Battle of Trafalgar, how did they feel about the death of Nelson?
The history of independence for former territories is an interesting topic in its own right and might even merit separate programmes, particularly during Black History month.
I too would have loved to know more about Stephen and how he achieved what he did.
-
I for once forgot it was on, i'd been at the record office transcribing for freereg.
-
I also found this episode boring and fell asleep half way though.
Maybe part of the reason is because we can't really relate to these ancestors. I can relate to my Ag. Labs even if they didn't do anything interesting. When they did something interesting, it seems very exciting (to me at least). They really are the backbone of this country. That's why Alex Kingston and Gregg Wallace were so interesting because their ancestors seemed so 'real'.
I felt last night that my eyes were glazing over - you know that look. :o
Rishile
-
I for once forgot it was on, i'd been at the record office transcribing for freereg.
Good for you
-
Don't think it's a question of not relating to this ancestry. It just wasn't tracing the family tree. It seems to be going on themes, carrying on the politics thread of the programme before. No attempt to trace the family tree.
-
Surprised to read a few comments inferring social history has no place in a genealogy programme. I'd say the two are intimately linked. No point researching who your ancestors were and when they lived if you don't consider the history of the times they lived through, surely? The Alex Kingston programme was a highlight of this series but - again - prostitution and how/why it took place in those times is social history. You can't avoid it!
Didn't watch John Barnes. I've learned my lesson on previous WDYTYA episodes that head for the Caribbean. But I think if I had family connections to that part of the world I'd relate to it better. John Bishop with the Warrior behind him in the credits infers maritime history and that's more my bag. I'm looking forward to that one even though I'm not a big fan of the man himself.
-
I also found this episode boring and fell asleep half way though.
Me too, and not for the first time this series - it's been really disappointing (apart from Alex Kingston's episode).
What a shame, as it used to be must-watch telly for me. :(
-
boring boring boring
-
Surprised to read a few comments inferring social history has no place in a genealogy programme. I'd say the two are intimately linked. No point researching who your ancestors were and when they lived if you don't consider the history of the times they lived through, surely? The Alex Kingston programme was a highlight of this series but - again - prostitution and how/why it took place in those times is social history. You can't avoid it!
John Bishop with the Warrior behind him in the credits infers maritime history and that's more my bag. I'm looking forward to that one even though I'm not a big fan of the man himself.
I agree but I still feel there was a story to be told regarding Stephen Hill. I appreciate the limited time in one programme but surely less of the long-winded reading out of documents - YAWN - would have been more appreciated by the wider audience.
I'm not a fan of John Bishop either, I just hope we see more of his family than a grandfather who sailed around the world and an excuse for the Beebs camera crew to visit some far-flung outpost of the British Empire ::)
Meow...moan over... ;D
-
boring boring boring
I agree with this.
For the first time ever I was nodding off. Listening to John Barnes reading was like being at school.
Another point, yet again assumptions were made. When he was showed a newspaper article which was not signed and they said that Stephen Hill probably wrote it, suddenly it becomes fact.
-
Sadly I think this programme has now run its course. When it first started I used to watch every one of the series and found it fascinating. Now it has become mostly boring in the extreme and only occasionally do I watch a programme which I think might be interesting - and then have often been disappointed. It's no wonder the programme makers have tried to introduce a different angle, but this approach doesn't seem to have pleased many of us, particularly the amateur genealogists, who like to see research to be properly detailed.
Gillg
-
I think John Barnes's family is an interesting family made uninteresting by the programme. What he said about the concentration in the father's side of the family is a common genealogical experience as the father's surname is the family's surname for the children, not because of any concentration on sports which felt like a shoehorn. There was no family tree history research. The family is obviously a mixture just like the Manley family but we we were given no indication of the family's background and, as people have said, how the family rose up. To be honest, I've found recent programmes' way of presenting celebrities gives the impression of deviousness - celebrities are presented, hints given sometimes of far more interesting stories and then these stories slyly kept as secrets and sacrificed for some social history/connection to the celebrity's career shoehorned in as if we were too stupid to take a proper skilful genealogy documentary. I'm not saying this is the intention but the impression given. There are plenty of good documentaries which do not purport to be genealogy documentaries which cover famous people and give more genealogy information and skilfully click the person into a context more than these last couple of programmes have - without even travelling around the world, just doing the research and giving a rounded presentation. So there! ;)
-
I found this one interesting compared to Celia Imrie which i turned off.
I do agree though it has become a history show rather than a genealogy show. However as i knew little about Jamaican independence it was interesting for me especially as this year was the 50th anniversary. Still i am a history buff so most history programmes are interesting for me.
I am annoyed that it will not be back until later in the year. Stop doing this BBC!
Sarah
-
Just been watching some additional footage
http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/footage/13858
The second film I found more interesting as it covers Stephen Hill at the Gleaner and something at the racecourse, but the music was really intrusive.
-
The John Bishop programme had to be postponed due to running into an immovable object, in the shape of a Michael Palin series. It ran into this object due to the insertion, halfway through the WDYTYA series, of a Panorama Special, on care of the elderly.
In my opinion, WDYTYA has been going downhill from the time they did not feel obliged to feature at least one paternal and one maternal ancestor.
Hibee
-
Agree with other comments , that this series does not go back far enough and is concentrating on one ancestor too much
Also
Call me cynical but i cant help thinking this WDYTYA is being aimed at the American market lately .
-
Call me cynical but i cant help thinking WDYTYA is being aimed at the American market lately .
Spot on, the format is following the US social history style. its more about selling the broadcast abroad that it is to entertain here. >:(
-
WDYTYA is getting so boring.
It was more like a Stephen Hill documentary than the John Barnes Family Tree.
I can't remember seeing a family tree symbol, once during the entire programme.
Absolute rubbish. If the rest are like this, I won't be watching anymore.
-
This programme should not be written off. The topic was completely new to me and so it opened a new historical era which I should research.
However, it was not a "genealogy programme"; it was just a history programme and a rather boring one too.
I think the BBC should take a typical member of the public and trace their ancestors back as far as possible, using certificates and documentation wherever possible. The trouble with this would be that there probably wouldn't be a "wow" factor.
Judy
-
It has nothing to do with the BBC, they just buy the program to air in the UK.
Wall to Wall are the production company and its their format thats changing.
-
It has nothing to do with the BBC, they just buy the program to air in the UK.
Wall to Wall are the production company and its their format thats changing.
I'd guess though that Wall to Wall produce the programme based on what the BBC wants to commission. They wouldn't just change what was a winning format off their own bat!
-
TV broadcasters are only interested in the viewing figures, if the figures drop significantly future programmes (series) will not be bought. They aren't interested in whether the viewing public actually enjoyed the programme (or not).
If viewing figures drop a little a slight change of content may be tried to bump the figures up, which maybe what has happened in this case.
This is just an observation on my part :-\
-
The John Bishop episode is to shown on December 12th. Another series of WDYTYA has been commissioned to be shown summer 2013.
Regards panda
-
This programme should not be written off. The topic was completely new to me and so it opened a new historical era which I should research.
However, it was not a "genealogy programme"; it was just a history programme and a rather boring one too.
I think the BBC should take a typical member of the public and trace their ancestors back as far as possible, using certificates and documentation wherever possible. The trouble with this would be that there probably wouldn't be a "wow" factor.
Judy
Oh!, was there a "wow" factor in this programme zzzzzzzzzz I must have nodded off and missed it ;D
-
I must I admit I zoned out during this episode.
Moderator comment: this thread has been edited.
Please keep on topic: reviewing the programme. Thanks
-
Maybe the problem is that they are running out of celebrities with something of interest in their family history. They must pre-research dozens of people in the hope of finding a handful that might have something to reveal that makes their story worthy of dedicating a whole programme to it or with enough twists and turns in it that it comes as a surprise to the celebrity. Which, in theory, is the point of the programme even though we all know that altruism doesn't play such a big part and that tv entertainment value is their prime interest.
While I find it interesting to an extent to nod a wink to the social history of the era these descendants lived in, I would prefer the programme time to be dedicating to finding another generation or branch, but then, if there isn't anything to be found, I suppose they have to fill in the minutes somehow.
And parts of each programme are obviously contrived to build up tension. The William Roach edition was a perfect example. They showed him a census record with, I believe, his gt grandfather having some hitherto unknown occupation and then sent him off to some historian to explain to him what it meant and give him the occupation he evolved to later on. Yeah, but if they had pulled up the next census record it would have shown us that anyway and we could have saved about 5 mins of airtime to explore something else. And I know that because while the programme was on, I found the next census record myself after wondering why they hadn't done so.
-
Reply from BBC (see my reply 31)However they still have not said why they did so and so going back again to request an answer.
Thank you for contacting us regarding BBC One’s ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’ programme.
I understand you’re annoyed that episode 10 of the series featuring John Bishop has been re-scheduled for later in the year.
We realise that late schedule changes are annoying to our audience especially when a particular programme has been extensively trailed or has been singled out by the viewer as a programme of particular interest. We honestly try to keep changes to the schedule to a minimum.
Unfortunately we don’t have details at the moment of when the episode you refer to will be broadcast, may I suggest you keep an eye on the BBC’s scheduling websites as well as the programmes website as when details are available they will be posted here first:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/programmes/schedules/london
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007t575
Nevertheless, I do appreciate you feel strongly regarding this, and as we’re guided by feedback such as yours, I’d like to assure you that I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a report of audience feedback that’s compiled daily and made available to staff across the BBC, including members of the BBC Executive Board, the Scheduling team, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thank you once again for taking the time to contact us regarding this matter
-
Just to say I believe that correspondence to the BBC is now dealt with by Capita, so the programme makers don't receive responses to their programmes as they come in but receive them in groups via Capita and many of the replies come from Capita operatives.
Regarding the standard of the programmes. If I was being cynical, it might cross my mind that the UK WDYTYA may have linked its fortunes to Ancestry which for the past couple of years has been being prepared for a stock exchange buy out and once it was known it was going through ( although not to Google or Facebook as originally mooted), the effort and money going into the programmes has dropped considerably. I don't pretend this is a sure fire reason but it has crossed my mind as a possibility.
[url]http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-22/permira-agrees-to-buy-ancestry-com-for-about-1-6-billion.html (http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-22/permira-agrees-to-buy-ancestry-com-for-about-1-6-billion.html)[/url]