BBC TV "WDYTYA?" Series 10 Episode #1: Samantha Womack

[Nick29]

At the end of the programme, Sam Womack said something like "I used to be afraid of my family history, but now I know my roots", and I burst out laughing, because she had only gone back 100 years and looked at two ancestors ! 

Why did they hire professional genealogists to show her how to do an Ancestry search ?

This programme was deliberately distorted to give maximum theatrical impact, and if future programmes are this bad, then I won't be watching ! 

[Mavals]

Nick - my OH also reflected on the fact she had not gone back that far! It was probably very unexciting in earlier years - ag labs and weavers etc. (Didnt Michael Parkinson say he had been " rejected" as a subject as his history was ag labs etc?)

I saw the Judge bit too. Judge of what?

I felt very frustrated by the whole programme. There was a great opportunity to do something about the Scottish records which hold so much more info than English ones.....what about French connections etc....? And of course the "theatricals" when the secrets were uncovered.

It left so many unanswered questions - yes of course they only have about 55 minutes of programme and I have no doubt if any of us were researching this family, there are lots of leads to follow up!

But nice to see some well preserved war records.

[Archivos]

I didn't see the programme, so can't comment on the content but I can comment on the process.  The filming process is done in rough chronological order, so the 'reveals' are happening there and then.  Filming is done over at least a week, and the prior research is done over a period of around 6 - 8 months.  During the research period, a 'story' is worked out, and filming is done to reflect this.  However, when it comes to cutting the footage down to only an hour, there are lots of strands and information which obviously has to be cut, and this can lead to the final episode chosen seemingly having lots of loose ends.

She will have found out a lot about her family, but we may not have seen it all.  And as for hiring a professional researcher to use Ancestry, they will have been there as a guide to show how it's done.  How many of you were experts at using online databases when you started your research?  The individuals are chosen because they don't know anything, haven't done any research, and don't know how to go about it.  Yes, they might be spoon-fed the information, but it's all been thoroughly researched and at the end of the day this is only an entertainment programme, not a how-to guide or in-depth look.  If it was, each programme would be about 4 hours long. 

[Annette7]

Just did some checking on Jessie Ryder having noted her father was an Alfred Ryder, Accountant.   She was born in Devon and there with her family in 1881.   By 1891 family are now in London - on both census Alfred is shown as .....Clerk so 'Accountant' might be a bit fanciful.   However, on 1891 Census - ref. RG12 - 120 - 53 - 42 - two of Jessie's sisters, aged just 14 and 12, are both shown as 'Music Hall Artiste'!!!  Following in steps of sister Jessie.

Annette

[Lydart]

I watched on iPlayer this morning.    

It was the deep red nail varnish that got me .... I was so put off by it that I didn't try and read what she was trying to read on the documents !

She was theatrical, true,  but that is in her genes .... and she works as an actress so only to  be expected.

Beatrice was seriously scarey from that photo !

[kerryb]

At the end of the programme, Sam Womack said something like "I used to be afraid of my family history, but now I know my roots", and I burst out laughing, because she had only gone back 100 years and looked at two ancestors ! 

Why did they hire professional genealogists to show her how to do an Ancestry search ?

This programme was deliberately distorted to give maximum theatrical impact, and if future programmes are this bad, then I won't be watching ! 

For once I find myself agreeing with Nick 29 

I thought they played too much on the theatrical effect of news on her and not enough on the content of what she was actually finding. 

I know they can't put in everything they film but to my mind there were too many unanswered questions and holes that left the programme flawed and disconnected. 

I also laughed at her comment about knowing her roots - indeed after 2 ancestors 

Kerry

[silvery]

She was seriously annoying.   Forever running her hands through her hair, or flicking her hair about;  reading with a finger, overdone surprise etc etc. 

It was interesting family history though.   I want to know more about them.   Annette7 posted some interesting stuff about them a couple of posts back.   

[mc8]

I thought she was a bit dim-if she really had this aching need to understand her roots, she might have had the gumption to ask her gran years ago...

and going to New York to look up stuff on line-guess you don't do the programme if you don't get some free travel out of it

[Leah-WW]

I thought she was a bit dim-if she really had this aching need to understand her roots, she might have had the gumption to ask her gran years ago...

and going to New York to look up stuff on line-guess you don't do the programme if you don't get some free travel out of it

In fairness, who is going to want to sit for 10 x 1 hour episodes looking at what family history research is really like? Staring cross-eyed at a screen surrounded by bits of paper for hours on end, with the occasional trip to a silent archive search room to stare at a microfiche reader surrounded by bits of paper, or (if you're really lucky) the chance to tramp round an overgrown, damp graveyard peering at headstones...