New Series of Who do you think you are? [Archive]

Fulhamster

05-11-2005, 11:08 AM

Wish we got this over here in Canada it sounds like a fascinating program.

I only recognized two names out of your list though Stephen Fry and GURINDER CHAHDA. :)

Hiya Jayne!
As a 'newbie' I watched the first series of these programmes. The show makes it all look very easy to find information, it probably is with a staff of researchers and all the time in the world to do the research. The 'celebrity' receives the information and does not really take part in the research apart from meeting mostly 'long-losts'. I stopped watching after about three programmes, quite disappointed. I feel that my time would be much better spent actually doing some research of my own. My personal view is that the television company would have been better off concentrating on, perhaps, one person and working through the processes of research over several weeks. This would at least have the merit of having a sense of real time research and the effort sometimes needed to gain the eventual goal.
To quote the great Dave Norman " You ain't missin' nuffin'!"

Peter Goodey

05-11-2005, 12:42 PM

"This would at least have the merit of having a sense of real time research and the effort sometimes needed to gain the eventual goal."

I agree. I don't think it was explicitely stated but a lot of people seem to have got the impression that "research" was something you could conduct solely from the comfort of your own keyboard. But on the other hand they also seemed to imply at one stage that to get a copy of a birth certificate from Bolton, say, one had to travel to Bolton in person.

It was also a mistake, in my view, to have the research techniques hidden away behind a 'press the red button'. Not everyone has a red button yet and when the show gets rehashed on the Discovery channel or some such place you can bet your boots the red button won't be available!

Mythology

05-11-2005, 2:24 PM

It is all made to look ridiculously easy, isn't it?

Not having a go at record offices.
Most of them have good facilities.
Most of them are well-organised.
Most of the staff are helpful, often extremely helpful.
Most of the staff either know their stuff or, if they are new, will shout for somebody who does.

Never, though, do the people on these programmes encounter any of these real-life events....

The reader-printer that has broken down, and they only have one, so, sorry folks, no copies today.

The reader-printer that is supposedly working but, from a perfectly good film copy, presents the user with a 100% black sheet of paper, the user then being told that it's not their printer that needs sorting out, it's because "some of those films are very faded".

After waiting just over half an hour, the wrong box of documents. Member of staff apologises but the jobsworth in charge of the office has decreed that if *they* screw things up, that's your problem, not theirs, so no queue-jumping - they'll just send it back and you'll have to wait another half hour for (hopefully) the correct one.

On making an enquiry about anything they might have which might help with a Congregational minister of a chapel whose records have not survived in the 1840s, being asked "Have you tried Crockford's?".

And, only this week, on making an enquiry re an 1820s marriage licence in an office that I had not visited before, so wasn't familiar with the system, being asked "What do you want the licence for? It won't tell you anything".

Any one out there with pots of money want to finance my alternative "Grumpy Old Men" version? ;)

Chasing Caseys

05-11-2005, 9:25 PM

When this post first appeared last night i wrote a long ish reply about my dissapointment of this programe but deleted as i thought all the more experienced ones would tell me off !! Like others i also would like to see them have less subjects and more indepth research going back further than Great Grandparents and how when you start to get as far back as OPR,S and beyond how to go about finding "yours". I too would like to "see them" at the records office or TNA or for those who cant get to those records offices - how to use the internet for research - basically more useful facts about how to find your ancestors other than the basic guidelines they seem to have on most sites. I have harped on before about how good the Scottish records system is and apparently very soon (!) they will have the OPR,S on line - Thank God for my Scottish lineage Scotland make it far easier |book2|

Neil Wilson

05-11-2005, 10:53 PM

Regarding the first series, did anyone see the celebrities do anything but travel from A to B? The scenery was nice though.
I think this programme gives the viewers the wrong impression of carrying out research. At a local family history fair the other month, people expected you be able to produce their family tree from their grannie's name.|help|
After all that, I will still try to watch it, you never know, I might learn something.

Chasing Caseys

05-11-2005, 11:12 PM

I did contact someone from the programe about how to search for one of my hard to find ones and to be honest he didnt come up with anything but the obvious - that was long before i joined B-G and gained far more useful knowledge on how to find him and i would have expected (hoped in hindsight) he would have suggested similar avenues to search althought i do appreciate he probably had many enquiries at the time.
Still havnt found him though |banghead|

martync

06-11-2005, 12:38 PM

The interactive TV "how to" and peoples own research programs were in some ways more interesting than the main programs, I hope they do those again or even better turn them into a longer sister program on broadcast.

busyglen

06-11-2005, 12:39 PM

I wonder.....how many other celebrities were approached, but weren't able to be used because the researchers weren't able to find anything positive? Like us, I suspect that there were a few that proved difficult, and these would not make for good viewing! It would have been interestesting to have seen `their' struggles though, just to prove that we are not alone!

Glenys

BeeE586

07-11-2005, 2:10 AM

Peter Goodey

07-11-2005, 10:35 AM

I think we're all well used to nothing being purely educational these days. After all, we have to avoid the dreaded 'elitism', don't we? I think it was the balance between the entertainment and the educational aspects that people are basically complaining about.

Think of something like 'A Picture of Britain' that managed to be both entertaining and educational. Think also of its complementary programme 'A Digital Picture of Britain' that went out immediately afterwards on Beeb 4, dedicated to digital photography - another fast-growing hobby. This was a proper programme and not a ten minute 'press the red button' thing.

I think they met their apparent aims more successfully than "I'm a Celebrity - Get me Out Of This Family Tree" or whatever it's called, but it's all a matter of opinion.

busyglen

07-11-2005, 11:08 AM

Again, I am in a minority. There were some drawbacks, it did all look easier than it actually is, but was the series really intended to be purely educational ? I found these programmes entertaining and I enjoyed them.

Eileen

Actually Eileen, I watched it and enjoyed it and didn't even question the ways and means. It was only later when people started the discussions that I thought about it.

I know it was also partly educational in that it gave you ideas where to go to start your research, but perhaps I am a bit naive in that I didn't start to look beyond the researching and how the programme was constructed. I just enjoyed it as a peep into other peoples families.

Glenys

Mythology

07-11-2005, 12:08 PM

Yes, I wouldn't think you're in a minority in thinking that it was entertaining and enjoyable, Eileen. I'd even go so far as to say that some of it was genuinely *interesting*, and some of it was *educational* in that there were bits of local history, social history etc. that were new to me, and things like that newsreader (Moira Stuart/Stewart I think her name is) delving in West Indian records that I knew absolutely nothing about.

What it was *not*, however, was a reasonable representation of what Mr/Ms Average is likely to encounter when attempting to trace their family tree. In this respect, I feel that it was extremely misleading, and has simply added to the chaos started by the heavily publicised online release of the 1901, which, as the trendies slowly drop out, was beginning to subside a little.

Give something (anything) enough publicity, and loads of people with no previous interest in the subject think "Wow, that looks like fun", and pile in simply because it's the current fad, thinking it's a doddle. Diving in at the deep end, without bothering to read up on anything (reading is too much effort for them) these "click a button, get all the answers" merchants are, frankly, a pain in the neck.

It's a bit like hillwalking in the 1970s and 1980s - a succession of TV programmes extolling the virtues of the wild resulted in a sudden mass of people with all the trendy Berghaus clothing, all the expensive gear etc., all the tools - but absolutely no idea how to use them, and in too much of a rush to get out there and *do* the hills to spend time working their way up through easier "boring" territory *learning*.

My (probably unpopular) view is that if someone is genuinely interested in something, they will make the effort to find out what's what for themselves, and I rather disapprove of the artificial generation of interest by the media.

BeeE586

07-11-2005, 3:47 PM

Myth, I do so agree with your last paragraph about people jumping on the latest 'bandwagon' dreamed up by the media, and then jumping on the next one when the first one becomes boring or difficult because they can't be bothered to find out enough about it to do it properly.

Most of the people I know who are involved in the subject agree that researching one's family is a serious undertaking, involving much thought, deduction, analysis of results, high and low points of discovery or non-discovery, following and discarding false trails and you all know the rest just as well as do I.

However, can we seriously expect any TV programmer to cover what we have learned over many years in a series of half hour slots ? The programmes were surely intended for general viewing, not only for Family Historians and as such probably achieved their aim.

Eileen

PS My 'best' fleece is a Berghaus, one of last year's Christmas presents. It is warm, comfortable and I am neither trendy nor a hillwalker. Should I perhaps not be wearng it ?

|wave|

Mythology

07-11-2005, 4:42 PM

"can we seriously expect any TV programmer to cover what we have learned over many years in a series of half hour slots ?"

No, I agree, we have to be realistic about it. TV producers need to turn out *popular* programmes to stay in a job, so keep it fairly lightweight and full of success - half an hour of someone peering at barely legible microfilms and coming up with nothing would have viewers deserting in droves.

There's the odd exception, but this is where most documentary-type programmes fall down in a similar way in my eyes - loads of nice pictures, loads of irrelevant waffle, and the *facts* in the programe that they've strung out to an hour could be put in two sentences in a book. If you want good viewing figures, though, that's what you have to do, isn't it?

As for that Berghaus fleece .... ;)

Well, OK, as it was a present from somebody, I'll let you off this time! :D

NFurniss

21-11-2005, 8:40 PM

I am restarting this thread, but maybe it would have been better to start a new one. I saw the Ian Hislop War Memorial program last night. It seems that Ian has been converted since he was made the subject of a program in the last series. Well done, Ian. You have taken a broader view and have shown the relationship between Family History and Social History.

Fulhamster

21-11-2005, 9:10 PM

Hiya!
I am truly sorry to have missed that. I shall watch the next three with the hope that I haven't missed too much info to get something worthwhile from the programmes.

Mary Young

21-11-2005, 11:01 PM

. I saw the Ian Hislop War Memorial program last night. Hi, Nick
Could you tell me, when and what channel? I'm wondering whether (once again) Scotland has lost out on an interesting programme.

Chasing Caseys

21-11-2005, 11:40 PM

Hello Mary

I saw your post a while ago and as no one has answered yet it is on Channel 4 8:00 pm on Sundays (Down South !)

And well worth watching

NFurniss

27-11-2005, 3:23 PM

Hi All,
Hope we enjoy the program tonight. Maybe we should compare notes?

Peter Goodey

27-11-2005, 5:12 PM

"Hope we enjoy the program tonight. Maybe we should compare notes?"

My heart sank when the voiceover announcer used a tired old cliché to introduce the first programme but, thank goodness, Hislop managed not to succumb to that particular temptation. He seems to be avoiding the most obvious type of story. I hope he continues in the same vein.

busyglen

28-11-2005, 9:49 AM

I forgot this was on last night, but when I asked my husband what was on next and he reminded me, I was really pleased that I hadn't missed it. Even though he's not into `family history' like me (although he's really pleased when I find more bits about his family) ;) he enjoyed watching the `Who do you think you are' programme.

I was a bit doubtful about watching this Ian Hislop series, as to be honest, I have watched SO many war programmes this year, (it being an important anniversary year) that I was beginning to get a bit maudlin. But...I thought the first programme was excellent!! I also enjoyed the programme last night, which certainly viewed life from a different angle.

As Peter says, let's hope it continues in a similar vein.

Glenys

NFurniss

28-11-2005, 11:01 PM

I think that this program is misnamed. It has a much deeper treatment than the usual 'Lest We Forget' theme. The links with Family History were brought out a little more clearly; a family tree was mentioned as a means of tracing the young lady in Bristol. I am looking forward to the next transmission in the series.

Peter Goodey

07-01-2006, 10:34 PM

Pam Downes

08-01-2006, 3:53 AM

In this week's Radio Times there is an insert in connection with the 'Who do you think you are' series, which gives some basic info on getting started with BMD and census, and then gives some ideas for further research and web site and address details.
It also says ' On 11-12 February 2006, BBC radio stations in your area will be hosting a Family History weekend. For details of the events in your area visit the web site'. (They also quote a phone number.)
www.bbc.co.uk/familyhistory (http://www.bbc.co.uk/familyhistory)
So I then spent several very frustrating minutes trying to find the link to the weekend. I still can't find a direct link from the web page but did eventually find this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/live_events.shtml
which just says 'Further details will be posted in the coming weeks'.
Pam Downes

Ladkyis

08-01-2006, 12:30 PM

I can tell you that there will be a linked event at Tredegar Library - in the old county of Monmouthshire - on Saturday 11th February because Gwent FHS WILL be there.

This was organised at very short notice, because the BBC have no idea how slowly local societies are accustomed to moving. However, we have rallied to the call and our publications will be available AND we hope to have some research material available for consultation

Ann

Neil Wilson

08-01-2006, 2:18 PM

I know that the BBC can produce an excellent local event. I was at the Chesterfield one late last year (BBC Radio Sheffield) which was at very short notice for the FHS's and other societies. It turned out to be well worth it from the societies view point.
Neil
Who will be glued to the TV on Wednesday

arthurk

08-01-2006, 3:43 PM

After you've all watched the first part of the new series of "Who Do You Think You Are?" (9pm Wednesday BBC2), don't rush out to put the kettle on. Switch the channel to BBC4 and try the complementary "Family Ties".
... if you're one of the lucky ones who can get digital TV via Freeview, or one of those who are prepared to pay a fortune to get it via satellite. |rant| As we are in neither category we had to wait till it was repeated (somewhat erratically) on BBC2 last autumn. I thought some programs were better than others, but even the worst of them was far more interesting than most of what's on TV. |snore|

Grumpy of East Sussex

Sue Mackay

12-01-2006, 1:13 PM

After you've all watched the first part of the new series of "Who Do You Think You Are?" (9pm Wednesday BBC2), don't rush out to put the kettle on. Switch the channel to BBC4 and try the complementary "Family Ties". This seems to be in the same sort of bag but claims to deal with more ordinary people. It might potentially be more interesting to us (I'm only guessing - I don't have any inside information!).

Well, I watched both last night and enjoyed both. I must confess I probably enjoyed the Jeremy Paxman programme more, possibly because I found it rather moving to see this belligerent interviewer reduced to tears by the plight of his great grandmother. Of course it all seemed terribly familiar to me, as I was brought up in Glasgow. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that you can just walk into the Mitchell Library - a mysteriously empty Mitchell Library at that - and instantly find the right McKay in the Poor Law Records without a good deal of behind the research being done. I am not in a position to cast aspersions, however. I was stuck for YEARS on a Glasgow ancestor who became a prominent industrialist and a pillar of the Primitive Methodist Church, but who did not appear to have been born! Then - within the space of a day - someone DID walk into to Mitchell on my behalf and found out from the (thankfully indexed) Poor Law records that said wealthy ancestor was in fact the son of an impoverished Irish Catholic who had moved his family to Glasgow and changed his name from Patrick Quin to Peter McQueen to sound less Irish!!

Peter Goodey

12-01-2006, 3:19 PM

"...prepared to pay a fortune to get it via satellite"

A fortune? Surely not? I thought it was £120 for the installation and no monthly subscription required.

arthurk

12-01-2006, 8:36 PM

"...prepared to pay a fortune to get it via satellite"
A fortune? Surely not? I thought it was £120 for the installation and no monthly subscription required.
I thought I'd heard of some deal like that, but couldn't see anything about it on the Sky site. Even so, it's about twice the cost of a Freeview box.

Arthur

Mythology

12-01-2006, 9:02 PM

Apart from the price, the difference seems to be that the Freeview box ("around £50") gives you "up to 30 free channels", whereas Satellite with no subscription (they say £150, but I think I've seen that £120 figure somewhere, maybe someone's running a special?) gives you over 200 channels.

If you never sleep, that's about 7 minutes per channel every day - probably longer than you'd want to watch most of them for.