RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: coombs on Wednesday 15 February 17 20:25 GMT (UK)
-
Only halfway through the episode and finding it very interesting. Fred Durban liked doing things by doubles.
-
I thought it was very interesting and Warwick Davis always seems so natural. But the last 7 minutes or so with the 'impromptu' sing-song was just padding - I wanted to know what had happened to Dennis' family when he was 'on his uppers' in lodgings at his death.
And the sceptic in me wasn't entirely convinced that the Dennis Manning in the American troupe was Warwick's ancestor.
But on the whole very enjoyable, particularly the information on the poor man in the mental hospital.
Pat
-
I thought this was the least interesting in this series. He also did that annoying thing of deciding he knew his ancestor's character from the briefest outline of their recorded details. I'm not convinced it was his Dennis either.
And, he wasn't descended from any royalty!
P
-
I do sometimes wonder about these shows.
I don't doubt the factual content, but after all they are made for our entertainment. Nobody wants to watch an hour of "Well, Miss Famous Person, you come from a long unbroken line of boring nonentities".
Do they research first and if interesting approach the celebrity, or approach first and then go hunting? Whichever way, I think that there must be a reasonably high failure rate.
Regards
Chas
-
It was a pleasant and enjoyable watch. Nice to see somebody 'excited' by scandal and surprise - and with a sense of humour around that excitement.
It was a bit light on facts though about what others were doing.... but they did fit in two uplines, so an hour's not a long time.
It wasn't great from a genealogist's point of view of learning/discovering exciting things ... all mundane and leapt about a bit - but as "entertainment", which is what it is, it was fine.
-
I quite liked this one. I think it's always interesting to have a mixed bag of stories which this certainly was.
-
I found myself being quite jealous when I spotted on one census that his Irish ancestor hadn't just written "Ireland" as the place of birth but had actually given more detail.
-
I do sometimes wonder about these shows.
I don't doubt the factual content, but after all they are made for our entertainment. Nobody wants to watch an hour of "Well, Miss Famous Person, you come from a long unbroken line of boring nonentities".
Do they research first and if interesting approach the celebrity, or approach first and then go hunting? Whichever way, I think that there must be a reasonably high failure rate.
Regards
I remember many years ago Michael Parkinson was up for grabs, and they found that his ancestry wasn't interesting enough. So it would appear that a least a cursory research is done first. Anna
Chas
-
[/I wanted to know what had happened to Dennis' family when he was 'on his uppers' in lodgings at his death.
quote]
Lucy his widow went on to remarry in 1926 in Croydon and died in 1964 in Ashford Middlesex , Probate ( shown on Ancestry ) to 2 of her sons , one a hotel proprietor the other a clerk
-
Do they research first and if interesting approach the celebrity, or approach first and then go hunting? Whichever way, I think that there must be a reasonably high failure rate.
It was explained to me (by one of the show directors) that a large number of potential subjects are approached and agree to research being done into their past with a view to appearing.
Whether they actually make it to a show depends on:
a) there being something found that is of interest ( and preferably with an angle that hasn't featured before although that is now rather difficult), and:
b) being able to find a suitable gap in the subject's schedules for the filming - some find it difficult to find time to commit to the number of days needed.
Some of the "subjects" may be in the research phase for a long time before a decision is made or a filming slot agreed.
-
It was all pretty unexciting but - hey! - isn't that true of most of our family histories? A few minor skeletons in the cupboard (like bigamy! I've not come across that yet in my family but you never know!!!) but otherwise quite recognisable to us all.
I prefer this to all the 'related to royalty' rubbish but then, as a republican, I couldn't give a flying --- if someone's related to them or not. Infact, with so many so called celebs being 1,000,001th in line to the throne, it sort of makes my republican point for me!!
Anyway, jumping down from my soapbox, I enjoyed this one up until 10 minutes from the end when the singing started and it became rather obvious that the researchers had run out of material!!
Looking forward to the last two episodes as I really do think, on the whole, that this series has improved a lot, though I do wish they'd go back to the subject doing at least a little bit of the research instead of having it all handed to them on a plate.
A separate post has highlighted a programme on Radio 4 tonight at 11pm with left wing comedian Mark Steel looking for the story behind his adoption. Sounds interesting.
-
I am sure they do check records thoroughly to make sure they are the right people but you do wonder "How do you know it is the right person" if the surnames are common such as Greg Davis' ancestry.
-
I found myself being quite jealous when I spotted on one census that his Irish ancestor hadn't just written "Ireland" as the place of birth but had actually given more detail.
Same here, I wish my ancestors had been as thoughtful as his!
-
I rather enjoyed this gentle amble through Warwick's family history, and all credit to his mother for having all that research at her finger tips at the start.
I think we are all prone to imagining what our ancestors were like and giving them a bit of character which may or not have been true.
-
I quite enjoyed this one, although I also wondered if the musician was actually the right chap, and as usual found myself yelling at the television "What about looking in the 1861(I think?) census??" and "Hold still ... go across and look in the last column..." and similar.
My feeling is that this whole series has been better than the preceding one where it all seemed to be about people playing at doing a job their grandpa - or even parent! had done! It seemed to do what we all do - push as far back via census records as we can... then ponder how best to get further back. It was nice to be spared the "Taking the results home and telling everyone about GGGfather's misdeeds" bit.
-
Yes I also would prefer it if they gave a birthplace of the person found on the census rather than just a name and occupation. I looked Fred Durban up myself and he was born in Brentford.
-
I thought the singing was most bizarre and "not really related/not relevant" - and Warwick looked as if he wanted to disappear.... chap at the piano was far too keen and eager to sing/play on the telly. That'll probably end up in HIS family tree "there was some talk of your gg-gf being on the television...." and they'll imagine he was a wealthy celebrity :)
I think I'd have rather seen a walk to the pub where the "possibly a barmaid" and the Licensed Victualler lived/worked, even if that turned out to be the fish counter in a Tesco Express these days, than listen to that singing.
-
Oh yes, agree totally. I thought I'd noticed on the marriage cert for that pair (Barmaid & Licensed Victualler) on the programme that the address given for both was the same, wasn't it?
-
I found myself being quite jealous when I spotted on one census that his Irish ancestor hadn't just written "Ireland" as the place of birth but had actually given more detail.
Same here, I wish my ancestors had been as thoughtful as his!
Me too...what difficult job to track them down without the County...its as though they knew we would come looking for them one day ;D
I did enjoy this one but could have done without the impromptu singalong.
Carol