Who do you think you are (5)

[russethouse]

I was surprised they didn't look to see if Sarahs father had married twice.......maybe I missed a bit!

[Siouxzie]

I've got a "billiard marker"  - so I loved that bit, as I didn't really know what he did.  My Albert Alexander Bearman  is a billiard marker on the 1881 census at the "City and Counties Club" Peterborough.

Personally I was thrilled with the description the man gave.  I love it when someone less than respectable turns up.  Gives a bit of colour.

Yes ianfao, I wondered if the younger two siblings were in fact hers.

[linmey]

I enjoyed it, but It would have been nice to have known for sure what little Thomas died of and I would have loved to have known what happened to Sarahs other siblings. Its a big guess to say Thomas died of the effects of the cotton famine when at the same time my rural ancestors were losing far more kids than they did, hundreds of miles away. Likewise. We may be doing Sarah a disservice saying she cut her siblings out of her life when she married. She talked openly about 2 of her brothers, why not the rest. They could have all died.
     And they were so ashamed of poor Ernest. I think its great to have a colourful character in the family. You would think he was a mass murderer.

[newbie]

I enjoyed it too, very different from the previous ones.
I was surprised they didn't order the certificate for Thomas' death, did they look for evidence of marriage or death, or census info for the missing siblings?
I wondered too about the younger siblings, remarriage possibly, or as ianfao said, they could have been Sarah's without some birth certs?? we'll never know, but I liked Jane, especially how she got stuck into the census film reader, all that winding!
Newbie

[kerryb]

So was I the only one shouting at the TV then 'get Thomas's death cert and you'll find out why he died'?

I quite enjoyed this episode although I felt they left a lot out as has been said before about the circumstances of Thomas's death and also what happened to the other siblings.

I liked Jane too, and funnily enough I wondered about the din in the cotton mills and the accents!

Kerry

[cardiff]

Hi
It was enjoyable but I felt all disjointed..... was not planned and thought about, Too many unanswered questions for me!
cheers cardiff

[Arranroots]

Just had a quick look and George was Head of household in 1891 - although I guess in practice Sarah would have been running the domestic arrangements.

In 1901 she is married, but brother William is with them.

George seems to be married in Salford and his 2 sisters in law are in residence.

Ernest is married to Amy in Rawtenstall (was he the one that went to Oz?  I had lost the plot by then!)

Can't find Frederick or John as he sometimes calls himself.

There is a girl who is sometimes Harriet and sometimes Elizabeth.  Then Mary J.  Assume they are married, but just looking for them.

I wonder if it was something as simple as Sarah disliking one of her sisters in law that caused a rift?  There are not many of the next generation, so maybe they just weren't around to be mentioned?

See I can deal in speculation too!!

Arranroots  

Why did she call her auntie a liar - that really upset me!  Maybe I missed the joke?

[lizdb]

So was I the only one shouting at the TV then 'get Thomas's death cert and you'll find out why he died'?

Kerry

No you weren't cos I was too! Such a lot of time spent on speculation, when they could have found out for sure. As linmey says a few posts ago, many families all over the country were losing children in infancy at this time, so it seemed a waste of a large part of the programme assuming it was directly due to the cotton famine. All that would have been more interesting if they had the death cert in their hot little hand.
As for the other siblings - it was 'assumed' they all lived to adulthood. The first thing I would have done on discovering them,would be to look for possible deaths for them all. It would't have been the first family to have had about 7 children, but only 3 (Sarah + 2 youngest) survived. Certainly not so unusual that the FIRST thought is that they were all complete cads and she disowned them! I dont know how old the others were on the census when they were found, obviously under 10 as they werent on the previous census.
It could be that it was her brothers and sisters that died when she was 12 (maybe in some sort of epidemic), not her parents, and that is where that family story began, but it got twisted over the years. We know she was actually 29 when her parents died.

A good programme, but I agree it did leave a few unanswered questions, and tended to look for the dramatic before ruling out the mundane (a mistake VERY easy to make when doing family history - e.g. if you find 2 marriages for Joe Bloggs of the right age in the right place, it is tempting to think 'how exciting a bigamist in the family' rather than go back to the birth indexes and find that, yes there were 2 Joe Bloggs' born around the same time in that area. )

lizdb

[kerryb]

I agree and something that has been bothering me all night was this bit about Ernest going to Australia.

When she was talking to her aunt about the ring the details were that the cousin had gone to Australia in about 1921 when the ring was given to her mother.

Ernest went to Australia in about 1910 so how could they conclude so quickly it was Ernest that sent the ring, he wasn't a cousin, he was Sarah's brother and others may have gone to Australia.

Or am I missing something here!

Kerry