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?
