BBC "Who Do You Think You Are?" Gareth Malone (WDYTYA Series 12 Episode 5)

[jan57]

YES  I held my mouth open, when I saw the actual marriage cert on the page... ARRRGGHH  I thought that doesn't happen..

The marriage we saw was from the Ancestry West Yorkshire parish register collection (it was at St Peter, Leeds), so there is an image of the register page to view. 
The same applies to many marriages in London, Surrey, Warwickshire, Lancashire, Gloucestershire, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester - so long as they were CofE church weddings.

  was about to say  the  same  statement !    I've seen quite a few  of  my  relatives( and hubbys side  also) from  seeing the  images ,  and saved  a few pennies  in the  process ! 

[fraser1]

Thanks for the information.   I think perhaps a couple of marriages might have been in London but don't know what church so it will be worth a look.   Can you see births and deaths?

Sandra

[Galium]

The marriage records are available because it is parish registers you are looking at. After 1837 the church marriage register page is set out like the civil register, showing the same details.


Birth and death details are not entered in church registers, only at the register office, so are not available to view online, as is also the case with register office marriages.

However, parish registers do contain baptism and burial records.  Baptism records will sometime give a date of birth, but mostly record only the date of baptism.  Burial records usually only show the date of burial.

[jillruss]

[quote author=jillruss link=topic=730480.msg5754857#msg5754857 date=1442164787
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the US one is now much better than 'ours', even when I have no idea who the subject is!!   

So can you identify what the formula differences are currently between the 2 versions?

I'll make a start: 

Recaps in case you can't remember what you saw before the long ad break.
What's coming up next in case you miss it after the long ad break.
Long ad breaks in case you can't manage to watch an hour long TV programme without popping to the loo every few minutes during said ad break.
Long ad breaks in order to have a shorter TV programme because half of the hour is taken up with ads.
Annoying music - for some reason they did not find the original WDYTYA music suitable although Australian WDYTYA did.
 
[/quote]

Wow! Glad you got that off your chest! Yes, you do get ads, like everything else on tv which isn't on BBC - I record the programme and zip through them so they don't bother me. The recaps are very brief. I couldn't give a tinkers about the music but actually prefer it to the British version.

To me, the biggest difference is that the subject of the programme does the 'narration', not Cherie Lunghi or Mark Strong or another disembodied voice. That way, it comes across as more immediate and personal. In most cases too, I think that there is much more of the subject doing the research and discussing the documentation with an expert. They also tend to go as far back as they can rather than stopping at what grandad did in the war.

Anyway, in case you actually want to make your own mind up, Ruskie, its on the Watch channel tomorrow night at 9pm. Its about someone I don't know - Angie Harmon from a series called Rizzoli & Isles which I've heard of but never watched. Last week's was singer Josh Groban and was very interesting. The one they did on Jim Parsons of The Big Bang Theory (one of my favourites) was one of the best I've ever watched - British or American.

Like ours, they're not all great but certainly worth a watch.

[Finley 1]

Angie Harmon is great .. Rizzoli and isles...   a comedic detective...

as regards certs on line,  mine are mostly Non conformists...   and not in the areas they seem to be available on line...

Even free reg, shouts back at me.. no you get nothing from me 

xin

[smudwhisk]

To me, the biggest difference is that the subject of the programme does the 'narration', not Cherie Lunghi or Mark Strong or another disembodied voice. That way, it comes across as more immediate and personal. In most cases too, I think that there is much more of the subject doing the research and discussing the documentation with an expert. They also tend to go as far back as they can rather than stopping at what grandad did in the war.

Sorry but while the celebrity does do some of the narration, they do not do all of it.  There is frequently a male voice doing some of the narration, especially but not exclusively for the recaps.

And for them doing the research themselves, not really got much of an impression of that myself and I've seen quite a few of the US series.  They seem to be handed a lot of it by the "experts" as with the other versions, although you do occasionally see them surfing the web a little.  As I've also seen quite a number of the Australian series, I'm afraid I'd agree with Ruskie's view of the US series.  In my personal view, its the worst of the three, albeit that the last couple of series have improved a bit but then they have started concentrating on not trying to go back as far as possible.  Which I know is what some RCers complain about the more recent UK series, but more detail makes it more interesting.

As for the UK series, I'd put Paul Hollywood's so far as the worst followed by Jerry Hall's.  While I quite like Jerry's I do agree with the others that said it would have been better suited to the US series, but then it wouldn't have covered so much because of all the Ad breaks.   A few series back the format in the UK series to me was getting rather dull and it would seem the programme makers thought the same, hence the tweaking of the format that has gone on and concentrating on less generation jumping.  That said, it's not perfect but has become more interesting again.

But, as always gets said, we're all entitled to our own viewpoints on these things and I know some RCers will disagree with me.

As has already been said on this thread, we have to remember its an entertainment programme, not a "how to do genealogy" series.

[jillruss]

To me, the biggest difference is that the subject of the programme does the 'narration', not Cherie Lunghi or Mark Strong or another disembodied voice. That way, it comes across as more immediate and personal. In most cases too, I think that there is much more of the subject doing the research and discussing the documentation with an expert. They also tend to go as far back as they can rather than stopping at what grandad did in the war.

Sorry but while the celebrity does do some of the narration, they do not do all of it.  There is frequently a male voice doing some of the narration, especially but not exclusively for the recaps.

And for them doing the research themselves, not really got much of an impression of that myself and I've seen quite a few of the US series.  They seem to be handed a lot of it by the "experts" as with the other versions, although you do occasionally see them surfing the web a little.  As I've also seen quite a number of the Australian series, I'm afraid I'd agree with Ruskie's view of the US series.  In my personal view, its the worst of the three, albeit that the last couple of series have improved a bit but then they have started concentrating on not trying to go back as far as possible.  Which I know is what some RCers complain about the more recent UK series, but more detail makes it more interesting.

As for the UK series, I'd put Paul Hollywood's so far as the worst followed by Jerry Hall's.  While I quite like Jerry's I do agree with the others that said it would have been better suited to the US series, but then it wouldn't have covered so much because of all the Ad breaks.   A few series back the format in the UK series to me was getting rather dull and it would seem the programme makers thought the same, hence the tweaking of the format that has gone on and concentrating on less generation jumping.  That said, it's not perfect but has become more interesting again.

But, as always gets said, we're all entitled to our own viewpoints on these things and I know some RCers will disagree with me.

Ain't that the truth! Unlike you, my impression of the US version is that most of the narration is undertaken by the subject and that the male voice just joins the sections together. I also have the distinct impression that they were going further back now yet you think the exact opposite! How strange! I haven't seen the Australian version so can't comment.

I still think the British version would be improved by better selection of subjects, rather than picking individuals like Paul Hollywood, Mary Berry and Gareth Malone just because they are today's news but will probably be forgotten in a few years. No problem if they had an interesting ancestry to research but they didn't really, did they? I don't know if its a problem with the show's producers wanting to appeal to the masses or with the researchers who can't find enough interesting bods to look into. Perhaps a bit of both? Its a pity, really, because it could be (and has been) such a good programme but everything seems to have fallen into a dull formula. So far this series, all I can say is thank goodness for Derek Jacobi.

As for the US version, give it a try and see what you think.

[Finley 1]

Sorry BUT I remember Mary Berry from TV many years ago.... so she is far from 'Todays News'  !



xin

[nanny jan]

Sorry BUT I remember Mary Berry from TV many years ago.... so she is far from 'Todays News'  !



xin

So do I!