RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: MarkyP on Friday 23 July 10 11:21 BST (UK)
-
Just read the info on this episode, described by Alison Graham of the Radio Times as a belting story! I've no idea whether Alison Graham is a family history enthusiast or not, so her idea of a belting story might be quite different from ours, but it does get a good write up. I'm looking forward to it. :)
PS Should have added that it on this Monday (26th) 9pm BBC1.
-
They seem to have gone over the top with the pre publicity on this one. My TV magazine has virtually given away the whole programme (which I won't repeat here). Still going to watch it though :D
-
I've Sky +d the whole series so I don't miss an episode :)
-
As Rupert Everett is a direct descendant of Charless ll, I would imagine that his family history is going to be quite interesting as I am sure that he is descended from the wrong side of the blanket.
Also Rupert as a person should make the programme fun.
-
I think it's got to be the wrong side of the blanket since Charles II had no legal heirs, hence the reason his brother James succeeded him. Wonder if the name Rupert came from their cousin Prince Rupert.
Cuthie
-
Charles II had at least one son with Lucy Waters, and wasn't there a family with Barbara Castlemaine? If it was a line from Rupert of the Rhine it would be a line from Jame VI and I, wouldn't it, with Charles just as a collateral ancestor?
Agree with Plummiegirl that it'll be the wrong side of the blanket but the wrong side of a royal blanket in those day was still pretty aristocratic
Looking forward to finding out - thanks for the reminder!
-
What a charmer...thoroughly enjoyed his story.....his Gt Aunt was quite taken with him wasn't she?
An insight into the process of research too, albeit crammed into an hour.
-
Yes I enjoyed that, as, what an interesting family history he has!
Really liked the fact as mentioned that they showed the process, and the banter between him and his new great aunt.
-
Really enjoyed the programme, but wonder what happened to his g.grandmother after she put her son Cyril into the Home for Small Boys. It just seemed that because she didn't show up on the census, she was dismissed out of hand.
Lizzie
-
We all found it quite disappointing.
Thought the way that he put people into stereotyped categories very off putting.
Not for us
Spring
-
This won't be on my list of favourite episodes, because (1) Rupert Everett was such a drama queen, and (2) I wouldn't want him doing any genealogy research for me, because he jumped to too many conclusions. There were lots of facts that were skipped over on certificates which would have ended the programme 20 minutes earlier, which would have suited me just fine ::)
-
I was a bit disappointed that there was a lot of talk and not enough looking on census.
I think my ancestor was a dodgy merchant seaman too.
-
We all found it quite disappointing.
Thought the way that he put people into stereotyped categories very off putting.
Not for us
Spring
We also agree with your comments. What an odious person he is.
Judy
-
There were lots of facts that were skipped over on certificates which would have ended the programme 20 minutes earlier,
I agree with that comment, I kept thinking why doesn't he read the certificates properly, but I still found it interesting. I wish I could find my g.grandfather as easily but he was a fisherman not a mariner.
Lizzie
-
Georgina wasn't hard to find out about. after a 10 minute search , I had discovered she was the daughter of George Teague b 1831-1875 and Esther Walker b 1828 Islington. I expect they knew but it didn't make a interesting enough story for the programme.Shame really to dismiss her so flippantly.
Not sure if I enjoyed this episode too much , have to agree with the Drama Queen bit.
The new series seems to have lost it's spark. Much preferred the earlier series.
nice to see the childrens home though ....found my best friends relative in there so will have to tell her.
-
We all found it quite disappointing.
Thought the way that he put people into stereotyped categories very off putting.
Not for us
Spring
My sentiments exactly -
-
I found Georgina in 1881 and her parents in 1861 but on a quick skim nothing obvious in 1871 - I think I found her mother's death in 1883 . Her father's death in 1875 in Marylebone. Her marriage to Frederick Everett in 1883. No sign of the Teague's in 1871 .....where does Georgina go. I did a quick search for Georgina Everett but nothing seemed to jump out !!!
N
-
Someone in Cyril's family must have kept in contact with him after he was put into the boys' home, or how could he have known about the "stockbroker who lived in Piccadilly"?
I thought that the revelation of the false information (that his father was deceased) on Cyril's marriage certificate was a good illustration of something many genealogists discover about information on certificates.
-
Navvies.
As a rule navvies don't go to sea. They dig things. Perhaps someone should have told him this?
Carole
-
There was a piece in the Telegraph about the programme which reported that his grandfather had an alternative family in Nigeria and that they found a coloured uncle Jacob aged 84 near Lagos. (Why wasn't that shown? Instead we were left with the insinuation his grandfather was bi-sexual.)
On his mother's side he is apparently the great nephew of Donald Maclean the soviet double agent and a direct descendant of the Liberal Opposition leader in Parliament from 1918-20.
There must be enough material for an entire series!
Yet another example that somewhat belies the idea of "Victorian values" which is reflected in my own tree.
Phil
-
I think we are being a tad too harsh on this particular personality.
To call him 'odious' is perhaps a bit over the top - but then you do get some drama queens on this forum. :P
We should remember that the host personalities are only following the leads put infront of them. With regards to him jumping to conclusions, keep in mind he is reacting to a camera. He has to give some reaction to the information presented to him. I jump to 'initial conclusions' all the time when researching - then I set about researching these things further - because I know how to. As we have seen some of his conclusions were far off - but he is only an actor (apologies to the members who don't like stereotypying).
Anyway with regards to the episode - I thought it was alright.
Windsor87
-
I found Georgina in 1881 and her parents in 1861 but on a quick skim nothing obvious in 1871 - I think I found her mother's death in 1883 . Her father's death in 1875 in Marylebone. Her marriage to Frederick Everett in 1883. No sign of the Teague's in 1871 .....where does Georgina go. I did a quick search for Georgina Everett but nothing seemed to jump out !!!
I wondered if she had remarried which is why Cyril thought his father was deceased when he married in 1919. That doesn't show where she was in 1891 onwards though.
Lizzie
-
I feel very sorry for Rupert. He didn't manage to get a jolly to some far flung location, but then he seemed very happy to ham it up. As the son of a Merchant Navy 1st Mate I don't think I like him referred to as a navi.
-
OK he mistakenly though a navvy was something to do with the merchant navy
Otherwise a good show
As always looking at too limited a part of the tree
I felt that as an actor he was trying to get inside the characters - but his guesses were clearly off
-
Although difficult, I am not going to read this discussion until I have seen this episode. I read before I watched Bruce Forsyth last week and spoiled it ... :( So I'm just bookmarking.
-
I found Georgina in 1881 and her parents in 1861 but on a quick skim nothing obvious in 1871 - I think I found her mother's death in 1883 . Her father's death in 1875 in Marylebone. Her marriage to Frederick Everett in 1883. No sign of the Teague's in 1871 .....where does Georgina go. I did a quick search for Georgina Everett but nothing seemed to jump out !!!
I wondered if she had remarried which is why Cyril thought his father was deceased when he married in 1919. That doesn't show where she was in 1891 onwards though.
Lizzie
Well, that was one of the conclusions that Rupert jumped to, that I was referring to. Did Cyril think his father was dead ? Or did he just hope he was ? It wouldn't be the first time that a bride or groom had stated that one or both of their parents were dead, when they knew it wasn't true. Only the truly naive think that what's contained on a BMD document is the absolute incontrovertible truth.
-
This won't be on my list of favourite episodes, because (1) Rupert Everett was such a drama queen, and (2) I wouldn't want him doing any genealogy research for me, because he jumped to too many conclusions. There were lots of facts that were skipped over on certificates which would have ended the programme 20 minutes earlier, which would have suited me just fine ::)
:( :( :( :(
I quite agree. In fact, these later episodes all seem to focus on the personality and silly twitterings of the celebrity concerned, rather than the family being researched, and I find it totally off-putting. It's a shame really, because the original progamme concept seems to have been lost.
>:( >:( >:(
-
This won't be on my list of favourite episodes, because (1) Rupert Everett was such a drama queen, and (2) I wouldn't want him doing any genealogy research for me, because he jumped to too many conclusions. There were lots of facts that were skipped over on certificates which would have ended the programme 20 minutes earlier, which would have suited me just fine ::)
:( :( :( :(
I quite agree. In fact, these later episodes all seem to focus on the personality and silly twitterings of the celebrity concerned, rather than the family being researched, and I find it totally off-putting. It's a shame really, because the original progamme concept seems to have been lost.
>:( >:( >:(
The programme did set out on a mission - to find out if Rupert's g. grandfather was a stockbroker, like his father was, and it achieved that goal. What I didn't like was the way it was done. Rupert either had very poor support from the researchers, or he didn't listen to them. For instance, when he sent off for the birth certificate of his grandfather, he skipped over the first column (date and place of birth) so fast, he almost set fire to the paper ! His grandfather clearly wasn't born at the swanky address befitting his grandparent's status. Looking at that, clearly something had gone wrong, but it took another 10 minutes of programme time with Rupert wading through newspaper records to find out that his ancestor had gone bankrupt.
When this programme is watched by so many who have a great interest in genealogy, it is an insult to their intelligence to skip over such important clues that even a novice would spot. Another example was speculation of how old his g. grandmother was, when 3 minutes earlier he had her marriage certificate in his hand !
-
I too was disappointed by this episode. It appeared to lack focus, as if it had been cobbled together at the last minute. For someone perhaps watching the series for the first time, it would do nothing to inspire them to research in a systematic way.
-
i know they only have an hour but its a shame more wasnt said of Georgina, so they didnt find her under teague or everett on the 1891 census i wonder if they tried name variants or if she had died or remarried ?
its also a shame they didnt go further back than the Victorians
i found Cyrils bp. online
b. 6 June bp. 5 Sept St Clements Notting Hill, Cyril Frederick Cunningham Everett 33 Woodstock rd, Shepherds Bush, s/o Frederick and Georgina Everett, Fred is a sailor.
this is Georgina in 1881 (the one they used on the program last night)
RG11; 21; 20; 35;
Georgina Teague marriage on FreeBMD has a postem next to it!
which says Births Sep 1886
Everett Cyril Frederick C Fulham 1a 204
marriage
Marriages Dec 1883 Kensington 1a 77
DRAKE Martha
Everett Frederic William C
Teague Georgina
WHITLEY Robert
added
the marriage is online too:
29 Oct 1883 St james Norland Kensington
Georgina Teague 20 spinster 25 Portland Rd, George Teague Manager
Frederic William Cuningham Everett 20 bachelor seaman 25 Portland Rd Frederic Everett Stockbroker
both sigend
witnesses i have no idea!
-
As has been said already, he missed vital clues on the certs.
I thought his great aunt was an absolute gem!
Polly
-
"Play for the other team" :o :o poor Aunty !
Marcella Lawless parent's were Irish via Yorkshire - he was a beerhouse keeper and Labourer .......1871 census; so it looks like he did have some navvies in the family ! You can follow them through to 1911............although by this time her father Patrick is dead - she and her mother are in a hotel in Bournemouth.
N
-
When this programme is watched by so many who have a great interest in genealogy, it is an insult to their intelligence to skip over such important clues that even a novice would spot. Another example was speculation of how old his g. grandmother was, when 3 minutes earlier he had her marriage certificate in his hand !
I agree totally. This episode was very annoying! And I'm getting really irritated by the ' x has gone to the x archive/library to find out about x" segment, where we find his journey was completely unnecessary because all the hard work has actually been done by a researcher at said institution, who simply hands it to him in the best lookiing room they can find in the building!
Everett ambled nonchallently into the maritime museum and was handed all his ancestors necessary documents without even a mention of where they came from, or an indication of all the hard work that went in to finding them. I think this is remiss of the programme makers, because the celebrity is surely missing out on the emotional journey the research experience takes you on - seeing my 3x grandfather's name on the big, dusty old Master Mariner's ledger at the Guildhall Library, for example, is one of the highlights of my research so far. Yet Everett was simply handed a black and white photocopy of the page with his ancestors name on it which, did little to provide any context for the document, and gave it none of the emotional impact of seeing where it came from has.
-
Well done Toni proving that anyone (even the BBC) could have found out on-line the basic amount of information. A very interesting addendum.
I felt sorry for the elderly "discovered cousin" who was instantly challenged by Mr Everett when he said that he owed him a £1000. For a few moments he really looked worried. A very nasty piece of filming.
Judy
-
I felt sorry for the elderly "discovered cousin" who was instantly challenged by Mr Everett when he said that he owed him a £1000. For a few moments he really looked worried. A very nasty piece of filming.
Judy
I thought that part was a bit uncomfortable too but I felt that it was just one of several remarks that Mr Everett made which demonstrated his lack of involvement in any of this. He, and like him I am now jumping to conclusions, seems to be a bit lacking in the art of general social interaction. Perhaps that's because of his 'canteen of (silver) cutlery) or his lifestyle as a 'luvvie'.
heywood (proud daughter of a navvie ;))
-
A very nasty piece of filming.
I also thought the bit where he got the guys name wrong could easily have been reshot - like we believe that was actually the moment they first met, the camera's just happened to be there? Wondered what the programme makers were trying to acheive there.
-
What does Rupert Everett do, is he a celebrity of some sort?
-
"Navvy is a shorter form of navigator (UK) or navigational engineer (USA) and is particularly applied to describe the manual labourers working on major civil engineering projects. The term was coined in the late 18th century in Britain when numerous canals were being built, which were also sometimes known as "navigations", or "eternal navigations", intended to last forever. Canal navvies typically worked with shovels, pickaxes and barrows."
The afore-mentioned is the definition of "navvy" from Wikipedia.
I too had never heard of Rupert Everett.
Judy
-
Sadly, I too found this episode far from the entettaining episode I had expected..
Apart from not looking further into the Teague line, what happened to the wife in Hong Kong??
I think though that we all get too annoyed at the fact that the "celeb" turns up at archives to find the work has already been done for them. As we all know this is a time consuming exercise and would not be good telly. But would love for this to be explained at sometime during the programme.
I was also disappointed that we found out nothing regarding his "royal" lineage, albeit from the wrong side of the blanket.
The bit on the street with the ancestor of Rose Marie was uncomfortable only because the old gentleman probably had no idea who Rupert was, and did not understand his humour.
Love great aunt Marguerite though, especially the comment "do you bat for the other side?" so funny.
-
What does Rupert Everett do, is he a celebrity of some sort?
He is an actor once described as "The Gay Prince of Hollywood" -
http://www.starpulse.com/Actors/Everett,_Rupert/Biography/
-
I found this one of the dullest episodes so far. And somehow Rupert didnt "gel" with the screen- he didnt look comfortable with the whole thing at all.
The "cousin" he met looked horrified when he said "you owe me £1000", it didnt sound like a joke at all to me!
His old aunt was the most entertaining part of the whole programme I think! She was a hoot! ;D
I hope next episode is better otherwise my love affair with WDYTYA may be at an end! :'(
-
I found this one of the dullest episodes so far.
His old aunt was the most entertaining part of the whole programme I think! She was a hoot! ;D
I agree ;D , if this had been the first WDYTYA I'd ever watched I wouldn't bother watching anymore.
-
personally, I found this episode extremely interesting.
So, Rupert was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, yet his grandfather spent the age from 3 to around 14 in a children's home for destitute boys.
His Grt Grandfather was a sailor who abandoned his family, married several times, and left his money to a female 'friend'.
Yet before that, his Grt Grt Grandfather was a stockbroker in Picadilly, who became bankrupt over what appears to be fraud.
So surely, we have a case of riches to rags and back to riches again!
I was inspired to do a bit of research on Georgina Teague myself, and found a few of the items mentioned in an earlier posting.
I thought it showed quite well, how our lives can be shaped by events in our ancestors' past, and how they can overcome misfortune.
Regards
-
I hope next episode is better otherwise my love affair with WDYTYA may be at an end! :'(
The next episode is Dervla Kirwan- so should be good for those of us with Irish ancestors (or hubby's with them ;D)
Didn't like last night's episode,although it did(eventually) go back to showing us certs and covering a few generations,which is what the earlier progs did.
Carol
-
I kind of enjoyed it but found Rupert to be a bit snobbish. I am not interested in the aristocracy stories coming as I do from a long line of ag labs!.... so wasn't too bothered about the program not including that but wasn't sure why he even met up with Rose Marie Bawtree's grandson, who'd never met Fred Everett, didn't know anything about him and I agree looked very uncomfortable about the whole thing.
Pointless!..
Great Aunt Marguerite was fab - I wonder if he's going to keep in touch with her?...!.. eh?... ;D
-
I'm wondering if this series' theme is undiscovered families - bigamous marriages/illegitimate children not known to the "first" family?
I can't say I took to Rupert Everett on what we saw, but I did find the "story" interesting - the grains of truth in amongst the rest. Like others I'd gathered from press reports that they seemed spoiled for choice on which angles/lines to follow on the programme.
-
As Dave said, the content of the programme was interesting, but the way it was presented was poor. I thought Rupert appeared bored at times with the whole thing and seemed to be wishing he was else where. He jumped to conclusions without looking properly at the facts. Best bit was his great aunt.
Jan
-
I found the programme interesting. Like quite a few people on here I would have liked more information on certain facts which had been ommitted but I realise the producer probably had too many filmed scenes and had to choose which ones to discard. I cringed at the meeting where Rupert said the rellie owed him £1K - then wondered if it was left in to shock us and who's to know whether it had been filmed more than once because somebody fluffed his lines.
-
I quite agree there were the elements that could have made an excellent programme. It is often said clogs to clogs in three generations! There were odd gaps, and so much unanswered, I can only assume it was as I said earlier a cobbled together rush job.
-
A refreshing hours snooze.
-
I found Georgina in 1881 and her parents in 1861 but on a quick skim nothing obvious in 1871 - I think I found her mother's death in 1883 . Her father's death in 1875 in Marylebone. Her marriage to Frederick Everett in 1883. No sign of the Teague's in 1871 .....where does Georgina go. I did a quick search for Georgina Everett but nothing seemed to jump out !!!
N
I thought Georgina was dismissed far too quickly. She was actually born Georgina Esther Martha Teague. Have been looking at the 1891 census; have found a Georgina Ester Lethersich born 1866 in Middlesex, living in Tunbridge Wells, which looking at the map isn't far from her son in Horton Kirby. Unfortunately I do not have a subscription to any census so cannot look at the name, of course it could have been misheard. Just a thought!
-
I thought Georgina was dismissed far too quickly. She was actually born Georgina Esther Martha Teague. Have been looking at the 1891 census; have found a Georgina Ester Lethersich born 1866 in Middlesex, living in Tunbridge Wells, which looking at the map isn't far from her son in Horton Kirby. Unfortunately I do not have a subscription to any census so cannot look at the name, of course it could have been misheard. Just a thought!
From FreeBMD:
Birth, Sep qtr 1865
Georgina Esther LETHERSICH
Edmonton 3a 131
-
Seems like I'm going to be in the minority here but I really enjoyed this weeks episode ;D I liked Rupert Everett and I found it amusing that he made up stories whenever he found out new information, like Frederick with his tattoos who must be living with a fish woman, or how he left the house in Picadilly saying he would never return and ran off to sea. Yes they skipped over a lot of information and left alot of questions unanswered but on the whole I liked it.
The trouble with WDYTYA is that they make family research look so easy and anyone wanting to start tracing their family tree must think its a doddle.
-
I absolutely hated this episode! Rupert Everett is a horrible man. How he looked down his nose at anyone who is not upper class like himself. I was born in Balham and my family had lived in that area for generations. Nothing wrong with it at all. I was delighted to hear his ancestor had been a thief.
I was interested in the mariner details as one of my ancestors had done this although 50 years earlier. Something to look into.
I would have liked them to have concentrated a little more on Georgina Teague and looked into why she gave away her child. Even to have let us know when she died would have completed the story a little more.
Far too rushed an episode but will be watching again next week.
Sarah
-
All Rupe&producer seemed to want to do is to point us to Picalilly, and Rupe's family monies, rather than following what was really interesting, Ms Teague.
As for the disrespect regarding whether his gt-gfather was having an affair with the Nigerian "Servant"!
Summary? Interesting program about a self-centred, hollow, shallow character.
Ray
-
All Rupe&producer seemed to want to do is to point us to Picalilly, and Rupe's family monies, rather than following what was really interesting, Ms Teague.
As for the disrespect regarding whether his gt-gfather was having an affair with the Nigerian "Servant"!
Summary? Interesting program about a self-centred, hollow, shallow character.
Ray
Whilst I respect your views I take a totally different viewpoint.
At the outset Rupert introduced himself as a "poof" and it seemed to me that from a youngster he'd had to develop a veneer against taunts which now comes across as warped humour. He wondered aloud why his gt. grandfather had left his family at home instead of taking them abroad with him - and I thought it quite natural for a "poof" to wonder if his ancestor had been one himself.
We weren't left wondering too long about the situation because along came the usual handy "expert" to explain why families were left at home in dear old Blighty.
The puzzle I had was with the photograph of the little boy in rich clothing holding a bullwhip. Usually the props in old photographs indicated their status in life. Could it have been a "stockwhip" giving a hint to the stockbroker?:-
<stockwhip are a type of single-tailed leather whip with a very long lash but a short handle>
-
The puzzle I had was with the photograph of the little boy in rich clothing holding a bullwhip. Usually the props in old photographs indicated their status in life. Could it have been a "stockwhip" giving a hint to the stockbroker?:-
<stockwhip are a type of single-tailed leather whip with a very long lash but a short handle>
That fascinated me, too. Your hypothesis fits the bill. I wonder if it's part of the African connection?
meles
-
I wondered if the child was holding a toy.......whip and top? :-\
Nanny Jan
-
I wondered that, too. Right time, but I could not see a top.
meles
-
Ditto.
Polly
-
Theres the marriage of an Esther Teague in 1888 (Poplar) to an Alfred Quigley, I've been unable to find the couple in 1891 and I think Alfred died in 1897, is anyone able to look her up to see what her father's name is? I wonder if she remarried using her maiden name and middle name if she was still married to Cyril's father.
(Theres an Esther Teague b.c1839/40 but she marries a Dixon I think)
-
Great show, always enjoy every episode and hasn't the latest one got everyone talking.
Regards
Ron
Can't please them all
-
Esther's father was John Teague, Gardener.
-
Thats that one out then :-\ where on earth is she?? she can't have just vanished! has anyone checked immigration records? :-\
-
I reckon the BBC gave up.
T'would be good if we could find her.
-
I cant find any John Teagues, Gardeners, and certainly none with daughter Esther :-\ Can anyone else?? :-\ (theres an Esther in Cornwall, born 1847, but Johns an Ag lab)
-
But in 1861, her mum is a widow and a "market gardener", wonder if thats where the gardening connection comes from then, barking up the wrong tree probably with this Esther :-\
-
Personal opinion only
From an avid viewer of the series I thought he was a complete and utter idiot with his repeated references to the lower classes, navvies, I'm sure he doesn't even know what a Navvie is!!).
Some of the remarks he made about people were awful and he came across as totally lacking in empathy and dispalyed no social skills whatsoever.
Needless to say it was not my favourite episode
b einterested to hear others thoughts
-
The only snobbery which this episode has highlighted is contained within this forum. The chip-on-their-shoulder "Ag Lab elitists" of this forum should perhaps spend next week digging in a field and tending to sheep so as not to be offended by the wealth of other people's ancestors.
Just a personal opinion mind...
-
I cant find any John Teagues, Gardeners, and certainly none with daughter Esther :-\ Can anyone else?? :-\ (theres an Esther in Cornwall, born 1847, but Johns an Ag lab)
Are you looking for father of Georgina Esther? As her mother Esther maiden name was Walker!
If it is Georgina, her father was George W Teague. Have found them in 1861 but am unable to view the record. They had a son George Thomas Teague (b 1860 - d 1863).
Thank you avm228, for find Leversich, should have checked on Freebmd myself ;D
-
Personal opinion only
From an avid viewer of the series I thought he was a complete and utter idiot with his repeated references to the lower classes, navvies, I'm sure he doesn't even know what a Navvie is!!).
Some of the remarks he made about people were awful and he came across as totally lacking in empathy and dispalyed no social skills whatsoever.
Needless to say it was not my favourite episode
b einterested to hear others thoughts
Totally agree! The way he dismissed his stockbroker forebear as "ripping people off" was ridiculous - the case against him had been dismissed, as he well knew! Everett came across as a fantasist. Obvious that he didn't have a scriptwriter in tow to write his lines for him!!
Tony
-
I had an idea about the school/home for little boys.
It didn't seem to me to be the typical poor-house type of home. The children appeared well dressed, well fed and, obviously, well-educated. Did someone pay for Cyril to be present in this home? What do you all think?
Did his father send money for his care. More likely, his wealthy grandparents may have had a hand in it, after all he was a legitimate male descendant.
There must be a clue somewhere in the records of the school or do you think I am just being fanciful?
Judy
-
I'll admit I enjoy the episodes that are London based and the person doesn't discover they're related to royalty, but I expect that's because I'm from a London based family and we're all Shoreditch/Bethnal Green based.
I've much more in common with Barbara Windsor (she appears on my tree connected by marriage) than our Rupe.
-
I'm sure he doesn't even know what a Navvie is!!).
To be fair, you could say that for a lot of people.
-
On Cyril's admission to the 'home', it had mother's address as 20 Porchester Terrace, Hyde Park. This was in 1889, was wondering if there was a connection to someone living there in 1891 - sorry am unable to look.
If I have found the right street in 1881, it appears to be inhabited by mainly coachmen!
-
:-X :-X :-X :-X
-
20 Porchester Street in 1891 had as head a widower aged 72 born in E.Indies who was a General in the Indian Army and 2 female servants, one a cook domestic and the other a parlour maid domestic, so it's possible that in 1889 Georgina Everett was there as a servant. Or perhaps she had to put her son in the boys home so that she could work there.
Lizzie
-
The only snobbery which this episode has highlighted is contained within this forum. The chip-on-their-shoulder "Ag Lab elitists" of this forum should perhaps spend next week digging in a field and tending to sheep so as not to be offended by the wealth of other people's ancestors.
Just a personal opinion mind...
Not offended by it just not interested in it.
That's just my personal opinion. I found your comment about 'ag lab elitists' far more offensive to be honest.
-
On Cyril's admission to the 'home', it had mother's address as 20 Porchester Terrace, Hyde Park. This was in 1889, was wondering if there was a connection to someone living there in 1891 - sorry am unable to look.
If I have found the right street in 1881, it appears to be inhabited by mainly coachmen!
In 1891, 20 Porchester Terrace was occupied by an A D Engenidi, a "Constantinople Nationalised British Subject, Turkey", age 37, Living on Own Means, and Henrietta, also 37, born in London. Plus his brother Alexander, 20, "Nationalised Greek Subject, Constaninople, Turkey", plus a swathe of servants and their families (none of them called Everett).
-
In 1891, 20 Porchester Terrace was occupied by an A D Engenidi, a "Constantinople Nationalised British Subject, Turkey", age 37, Living on Own Means, and Henrietta, also 37, born in London. Plus his brother Alexander, 20, "Nationalised Greek Subject, Constaninople, Turkey", plus a swathe of servants and their families (none of them called Everett).
Not the one I'm looking at! Head of household at 20 Porchester Terrace, Paddington in 1891 was John C BROOKS (or BROOKE): RG12/16/78/21.
-
Personal opinion only
From an avid viewer of the series I thought he was a complete and utter idiot with his repeated references to the lower classes, navvies, I'm sure he doesn't even know what a Navvie is!!).
Some of the remarks he made about people were awful and he came across as totally lacking in empathy and dispalyed no social skills whatsoever.
Needless to say it was not my favourite episode
b einterested to hear others thoughts
Totally agree! The way he dismissed his stockbroker forebear as "ripping people off" was ridiculous - the case against him had been dismissed, as he well knew! Everett came across as a fantasist. Obvious that he didn't have a scriptwriter in tow to write his lines for him!!
Tony
I couldn't agree more. There was no evidence that his ancestor was dishonest, and the bad press alone could have ruined the poor chap. To write off a relative in such a callous way was really nasty. Seemed to me that Rupert was an attention seeker, first class !
-
In 1891, 20 Porchester Terrace was occupied by an A D Engenidi, a "Constantinople Nationalised British Subject, Turkey", age 37, Living on Own Means, and Henrietta, also 37, born in London. Plus his brother Alexander, 20, "Nationalised Greek Subject, Constaninople, Turkey", plus a swathe of servants and their families (none of them called Everett).
Not the one I'm looking at! Head of household at 20 Porchester Terrace, Paddington in 1891 was John C BROOKS (or BROOKE): RG12/16/78/21.
I was looking at 20 Porchester Terrace, Hyde Park.
-
http://www.census1891.com/streets-p.htm suggests there were two Porchester Terraces in London in 1891, both in Paddington, one each in Holy Trinity and Christ Church parishes (or perhaps one road, split between two parishes). The household I found at RG12/16/78/21 was in Christ Church parish. What is the reference for the Engenidi household?
-
I'm sure he doesn't even know what a Navvie is!!).
To be fair, you could say that for a lot of people.
I think most people with an an ounce of knowledge who aren't just completely self centered as he came over would know that "navvie" is an abbreviated term for "Navigator" who were mainly from Ireland and travelled wherever to seek work. But then that is a world so far removed from the life of the half baked actor that eh probably would not know what it means
-
Have enjoyed reading all these opinions! I started watching but must have dozed of about 10 minutes in. That doesn't bode well for me as I am just about to 'finish' watching it. I'm sure I will have an opinion too,
Abiam2
-
I enjoyed the episode and so did OH ( he who does not have a huge interest in genealogy)......
As I said previously not enough about the other ancesters but then we are getting used to that from the series'
OH does tend to get a bit irritated though - despite his disinterest he has spent many an hour in archive on searches through PRs etc trying to find various ancestors (he does love me ! ) and knows that you don't just walk in and get things presented on a plate = the probate one got me this time - Can I just walk in and the get the copy will, etc for the certain gentleman I am looking for - instead of a letter from the probate office (after cashing my cheque) which says sorry can't find it !!!! despite me giving them actual dates from the London Gazette !!!!!! Although - hats off to the probate office they did find the other three !.
I then start shouting at the TV - born em, marry em and bury em - ::) Did they do that to Georgina - I don't think so !!! AS some of us have realised she's hard work and like one of the previous posters I think the BBC gave up !!!
BTW - I did have a quick look at ancestry and I can't see a Georgina Teague nor Everett on the immigration records but it was only a quick look - she's a mystery !!!
N
-
I reckon Georgina has been mistranscribed on the census records and a broad search will show her up.
OR, she married again using a variation of her name bigamously.
-
I think most people with an an ounce of knowledge who aren't just completely self centered as he came over would know that "navvie" is an abbreviated term for "Navigator" who were mainly from Ireland and travelled wherever to seek work.
There have been a few people who have come onto rootschat to ask what is a navvy/navigator and did they have anything to do with the sea.
I shouldn't think would like to be thought of as not having an ounce of knowledge and being completely self centred.
-
Having just moved house again I know I am tired and it is only 8 pm but I dozed off again! So obviously I didn't think much of Rupert or his programme. Don't think I'll try again,
Abiam2
-
I thought Rupert Everett an out and out snob. His remarks about " snaggle toothed navvies" and how his ancestor was not one made me cringe.
I don`t know just what HE thinks victorian values are but for a man to seemingly marry bigamously would not be considered amongst them .
Too many unanswered questions which made me think there were skeletons which the family did not want exposing.
I had no idea who Rupert Everett was --that would deflate his ego no doubt but then I shouldn`t think
that an oldie descended from Ag Labs. leadminers, carters, blacksmiths,etc would count in his opinion .This episode was very similar to Jeremy Clarkson`s, who only wanted to know where all the money from the family`s Kilner jar business had gone.
Viktoria.
-
Now folks I have a suggestion to make.
Why don't the BBC make a programme solely about the origins of Great Aunt Marguerite? She was an absolute "natural". Well, my OH and I just fell about laughing at her comments. What a delightful old lady.
Judy
-
Now folks I have a suggestion to make.
Why don't the BBC make a programme solely about the origins of Great Aunt Marguerite? She was an absolute "natural". Well, my OH and I just fell about laughing at her comments. What a delightful old lady.
What a good idea ;D I bet she knew a lot more about the family than was revealed.
Which reminds me, It portrayed Frederick going off to sea never to be heard of again, and his poor widowed mother, who late husband was made bankrupt, was left to bring up the family. Hmm. All Fredericks siblings were at private schools, the youngest Marion was still there at aged 18. What is interesting that Marion married an Edward Pearce in SHANGHAI in 1894. His father was a wealthy Silk Mercer in London. It is is the Morning Post November, 16th, 1894. It wouldn`t suprise me if the whole family were in Shanghai including the missing Georgina and poor Cyril was put in the home for convenience.
Mo
-
Why don't the BBC make a programme solely about the origins of Great Aunt Marguerite? She was an absolute "natural". Well, my OH and I just fell about laughing at her comments. What a delightful old lady.
I think it's high time they did just that - made a show about ordinary folks like her, especially if they go back to their original format and concentrate on the genealogy, not the razamatazz (still don't think I've forgiven them for not showing Parky!)
-
Who owns the company that makes the programme, it's not made by the BBC
-
The family were living at 33 Woodstock Road, Shepherd's Bush on 5 Sep1886 for the christening at St Clement's, Notting Hill. Maybe it is worth looking at this address for 1891. I wonder if Georgina went by her other names Esther or Martha? Nellie
-
I am full of admiration that you all followed the programme. I was lost after 10 minutes, but like several others did chuckle at the great aunt. I wonder if anyone from the Beeb will check these postings?
-
I quite enjoyed it, it was obvious he didn't really know anything about researching or how it's done. I also found him funny, not offensive, and though he kept using the term 'navvie', again it was obvious he thought that it was something to do with the sea.
There is so much research done behind the scenes that they really can't show everything, and yes it's frustrating when they do just go into an archive and get shown things, but that's the way it has to be done for TV. It's an entertainment show, and though some don't appear to have been that entertained by it, I liked it for the story, not the technicalities of the research.
-
Could Georgina have gone to sea with her husband in 1891?
-
I transcribe crewlists (although not done any for a few weeks since I had cataract done, 2nd one being done on Thursday) and there are a few women on board the ships, usually as cooks. Can't see Everett on the FindMyPast crewlists, but that only means those particular crewlists haven't been transcribed yet,
-
http://www.census1891.com/streets-p.htm suggests there were two Porchester Terraces in London in 1891, both in Paddington, one each in Holy Trinity and Christ Church parishes (or perhaps one road, split between two parishes). The household I found at RG12/16/78/21 was in Christ Church parish. What is the reference for the Engenidi household?
Sorry, I made an error - this was the family inhabiting 20 Porchester Terrace in 1901 :-[
-
I transcribe crewlists (although not done any for a few weeks since I had cataract done, 2nd one being done on Thursday) and there are a few women on board the ships, usually as cooks. Can't see Everett on the FindMyPast crewlists, but that only means those particular crewlists haven't been transcribed yet,
Hope everything goes okay Lizzie
-
The puzzle I had was with the photograph of the little boy in rich clothing holding a bullwhip. Usually the props in old photographs indicated their status in life. Could it have been a "stockwhip" giving a hint to the stockbroker?:-
<stockwhip are a type of single-tailed leather whip with a very long lash but a short handle>
That fascinated me, too. Your hypothesis fits the bill. I wonder if it's part of the African connection?
meles
.
Another chatter mentioned that it might have come from abroad - the only time I've seen anything like that has been in the waistband of a character in a film - ahem
I particularly noticed that the handle was smooth & short and had what looked like a longish plaited leather whip which ended with a flat piece of leather which reminded me a our dog's tongue lol. The only top & whip I've owned had a simple string/thin rope which wound around the spinning top.
The flat end suggests it was used for animals and somebody mentioned a carriage driver's whip so I surfed to see if I could find one with such a short handle but couldn't, but that's not to say they didnt exist.
When I came back to this thread I felt rather small - everyone else had been researching the other characters in the documentary and here I was researching an irritating whip in a photo :-\
-
The whip could've been a photographer's prop
-
There is so much research done behind the scenes that they really can't show everything, and yes it's frustrating when they do just go into an archive and get shown things, but that's the way it has to be done for TV. It's an entertainment show, and though some don't appear to have been that entertained by it, I liked it for the story, not the technicalities of the research.
I totally agree..... next celeb lined up for the firing squad...anybody know?
-
One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned about either the Bruce Forsyth or Rupert Everett programmes - neither of them CRIED.
Is this is a record - two programmes and no weeping?
I for one will be heartily thankful if this trend continues.
Jennifer
-
I totally agree..... next celeb lined up for the firing squad...anybody know?
Dervla Kirwan next Monday ;D
Carol
-
Maybe we ought to place some fun bets ? I'd say the likelihood of Dervla having a sob is 80% :)
-
I have been surprised by the number of people who didn't know who Rupert Everett was.
So now I will reveal my ignorance by asking - who is Dervla Kirwan?
-
An actress, she was in Goodnight Sweetheart, but can't remember anything else shes been in
-
I was just going to write what someone has already pointed out- that both these were about ancestors who had betrayed their wives and families and then Jennifer you posted- perhaps that's why they didn't cry.
Actually we're not sure whether Frederick did leave Georgina :-\ but he certainly seems to have left his son. Although Cyril must have known something about his family. That's what seemed unsatisfying - there were too many unexplained things.
We only found out after my mother's death that her mother had been in a previous marriage and I recall someone contacting me years ago whose ancestor had been married to one of my great aunts and had then left his family and gone to Australia and had a new family there. No-one here knew of this at the time. I suppose these programmes do highlight circumstances which were perhaps more common that we realise.
-
(sorry for the delay in posting- Rootschat was busy ::))
-
An actress, she was in Goodnight Sweetheart,
Oh dear - I'm none the wiser :-[
-
An actress, she was in Goodnight Sweetheart, but can't remember anything else shes been in
Ballykissangel.
-
Dervla Kirwan was in Ballykissangel (we used to love that). She has been in quite a lot of things really and does the voice over for Marks and Spencer ads about food, I think.
-
Ballykissangel.
Ah - never watched it. Apologies for going off topic.
-
As has been said elsewhere, her connection to Michael Collins is already known, so it'll be interesting to see what else they dig up. Hopefully they'll stay in Ireland and give those of us with Irish connections some tips!
Kirwan is an old Irish surname by all accounts, so they could potentially go back a long way.
-
are records from Hong Kong and the like online?
-
As has been said elsewhere, her connection to Michael Collins is already known, so it'll be interesting to see what else they dig up. Hopefully they'll stay in Ireland and give those of us with Irish connections some tips!
Kirwan is an old Irish surname by all accounts, so they could potentially go back a long way.
I just looked her up and it said it came as a surprise that she was connected to Collins ???
-
So a second mate is a Navvy?????
He was so daft with his ideas of what was being revealed I got so annoyed with him I am not a Brucie fan but he was a far better subject he actually took the search seriously but this twerp was inventing a work of fiction why didn't the researchers put him right?
Trees
-
So.....what about Jacob?!!!
-
So a second mate is a Navvy?????
Hi Trees :)
In post #87 I pointed out that there are actually several threads on rootschat where people have thought that navvies were seamen.
Jennifer
-
This was a disappointing episode, (I thoroughly enjoyed Brucie's episode) I agree with what Nick said earlier that it could have been done in 20 mins. I'm sure it's not my imagination that they used to pack in so much more in an hour when researching both parents lines.
-
I guess if I was making the programme I wouldn't have said "Oh, by the way Rupert navvies have nothing to do with the sea - would you like to re-film that?" They could have also cut the bit where he miss-heard the researchers name as Consuelo and worried the chap he met on street with the opening remark "you owe us £1,000"
I think sometimes we forget that the programme is supposed to be entertainment not simply instruction on how to trace your ancestors. ;D
Carole
-
Just to add my thoughts. I thoroughly enjoyed the Bruce Forsyth episode and was surprised (after the show with him and his wife) that he was quiet, thoughtful and obviously interested, impressed and thankful with the findings of the researchers.
Rupert Everett did not display any of the above. He was too intent on creating a script of his own to listen to the findings.
Regards
Kathb
-
He was too intent on creating a script of his own to listen to the findings.
I don't think he was the first person in this long-running series to do that ::)
-
To be fair to Rupert Everett the unseen footage, part of which is now available on their magazine website, does show a more thoughtful side as he ponders the impications for a female ancestor divorced in the 18th century.
-
I have to say both Rupert and Brucie's episodes annoyed me, although they got better towards the ends. I did find myself shouting "get the birth/marriage/death cert, that'll tell you more..." or look there, do that etc at the TV on many occasions! I found them both quite slow, having said that there were very interesting sections. I much prefer the old format and finding out about both the maternal and paternal lines.
I would have like to know more about Georgina Teague too, and about how Cecil ended up in the boys home. Some of the 'entertainment' parts were totally pointless and unnecessary. They could have included more research if they'd cut the meeting between Rupert and Mrs. Bawtree's grandson and the Consuela part.
Great Aunt Marguerite was definitely the star of the show, not Mr. Everett!
Fingers crossed for Dervla Kirwan's episode.
-
To be fair to Rupert Everett the unseen footage, part of which is now available on their magazine website, does show a more thoughtful side as he ponders the impications for a female ancestor divorced in the 18th century.
I've just watched that http://www.bbcwhodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/footage/7498 What a shame that wasn't included in the actual programme.
Carole
-
I watched the beginning again earlier and I have to retract some of my views. In the beginning, he does seem quite contained and likeable so I wonder if he just got a bit embarrassed or carried away as different things were revealed (we didn't see all the revelations).
He has given us much to talk about though. ;D
There are a couple of 'trees' with Cyril but not much detail and I'm not sure about some of the detail.
-
I've just watched that http://www.bbcwhodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/footage/7498 What a shame that wasn't included in the actual programme.
Carole
My goodness, I feel quite guilty now about thinking ill of him before. I now blame the editors for a sub-standard programme. ::)
-
Yes, this clip was so interesting I wanted to know what happened next, I wonder why it wasn't included in the programme ???
-
Who the heck was Ann Vane?
-
Apologies if someone has already found this but someone on another site has found the Teagues in 1871 mistranscribed as Teager RG10 piece 6 folio 71 page 15.
-
As has been said elsewhere, her connection to Michael Collins is already known, so it'll be interesting to see what else they dig up. Hopefully they'll stay in Ireland and give those of us with Irish connections some tips!
Kirwan is an old Irish surname by all accounts, so they could potentially go back a long way.
I just looked her up and it said it came as a surprise that she was connected to Collins ???
She is quoted in the Magazine as saying she knew of the connection but thought it was a tenuous link.
N
-
Thought that Bruce and Rupert were very poor and uninteresting as far as their ancestors were concerned, although Bruce was marginally more interesting than Rupert. Rupert was definitely a toff and a pouf as he described himself.
-
They didn't bother with Rupert's more aristocratic ancestors.
Charles Hope Weir and his divorce from his wife Ann Vane has led me to an interesting discovery- a search for that also came up with the next divorce bill that was put to the House of Lords between Thomas Nuthall and his wife Lucy Scott - I'd done some research on this a couple of years ago but now there is more information available on the net about the act of adultery and what actually happened. It's like reading The Sun from 1757!
Thank you Rupert ;D
Carole
-
They could have also cut the bit where he miss-heard the researchers name as Consuelo.............
I actually thought this, and the Great Aunt, were the two funniest bits in the show!! ;D ;D (Unless you happened to be the unfortunate researcher!)
For the benefit of those who haven't heard of Dervla Kirwan I post the following link http://www.tmaw.co.uk/dervlak.html
Tony
-
Thanks to Carol8353 & Lynntony for that link.....I know who she is now ;)...Assumpta! in Ballykissangel.
-
In case anyone is mystified by my mention of Jacob have a look at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7830858/Rupert-Everett-is-stunned-to-discover-his-familys-greatest-secret-in-Africa.html
Phil
-
In case anyone is mystified by my mention of Jacob have a look at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7830858/Rupert-Everett-is-stunned-to-discover-his-familys-greatest-secret-in-Africa.html
Phil
With that and the divorce I think they could have made a more interesting programme of it.
Carole
-
Well, I liked Rupert and enjoyed his sense of humour. The problem, as always, is that we only get to see what the producers choose to show us.
As for Aunt Marguerite, surely she's Ethel from Eastenders? ;D
-
I quite enjoyed this and the journey he went on as he did seem generally interested and touched by what he found. Finding the relative was the icing on the cake as she seemed to be a right character.
-
he did seem generally interested and touched by what he found.
Yes, I agree.
I also don't understand why people were beating Rupert up over his misunderstanding of the term "navvy" - it's quite obvious that he understood it was an abbreviation of "navigator" and a natural assumption that it was a nautical reference. In my opinion it's a disgrace that the programme makers didn't bother to correct the misunderstanding. It was worth a moment of explanation. Lots more people will be getting it wrong now.
-
Who the heck was Ann Vane?
I wish someone would answer this one because I haven't a clue. Charles Hope Weir??? Do I need to watch again - maybe it was the bit that was on when the phone rang!
-
Ann Vane and Charles Hope Weir were featured on the WDYTYA magazine website....... footage not used in the programme.
It's a very short clip about their divorce.
Nanny Jan
-
But who were they?
-
This was the link posted:
http://www.bbcwhodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/footage/7498
I don`t know where they fit in though
Mo
-
I watched it as well and am at a loss as to understand what relevance they have to his story.
Oh well...I'm probably just having a senior moment. ::)
-
There is probably more information in the magazine; at least the unseen item from Bruce Forsyth's show made sense.
Nanny Jan
-
It's not that I care especially, just that I don't like the bewildered feeling.
-
I watched it as well and am at a loss as to understand what relevance they have to his story.
Clearly they belong to a branch of his tree which was eventually not chosen for the programme. They research much more than is shown, abandon some that goes nowhere, and film some that is eventually rejected.
-
I'm with gen. What is the point of showing a completely random clip about two people who are not mentioned anywhere else in the programme without reference to how they fit into the family?
-
Possibly a cunning plan to encourage you to buy the magazine to find more information. ;)
Nanny Jan
-
nothing in this month's magazine !
N
-
I wish you'd all stop posting on this thread - every time there's a new post, I have to have another go ;D
I've been trying to find Frederick's parents. I know they said he was a stockbroker and went bankrupt and I found that. It said he lived in Erith, Kent at the time.
There is a young Frederick there but his father isn't Frederick (stockbroker). :-\
There was so much not explained - even if it was just to say that there is no explanation ::) (Unless I wasn't listening because I was on Rootschat ;))
Was there an extended family?
Could Georgina have been at sea with Frederick?
Was there proof that Frederick was a cad - I know he was to his son but we don't know what happened to him and Georgina.
I think I need to get a more interesting life really!
-
It could be that there was not much else of a "story" in that branch of Rupert's family, hence they didn't choose to focus on it in the programme - but felt the divorce bit was worth its place on the website. After all, the clip illustrates a telling point about the situation of a divorced woman, and the position of women generally in the past. I think most people visiting the website would find it of educational interest, without knowing how the people were related to Rupert Everett.
-
Worst episode of the entire series. The BBC is scraping the barrel now. Such a shame as I thoroughly enjoyed the earlier programmes. Rupert Everett (not sure exactly who he is but hey, anyone can be a 'sleb' these days, it seems) came across as a particularly unpleasant character.
-
As someone who was mildly castigated for my views on Bruce Forsyth, (I didn't watch it), I thought that the Everett programme was quite inconclusive and as someone mentioned earlier, it seemed to have been cobbled together. To my mind he was a typical 'luvvie' with a poor knowledge of the real world we normal mortals inhabit.
I will watch Ms Kirwan's programme next week as I have Irish descendants and with any luck it will be better than the previous offerings in this latest series.
-
Just got round to watching this on iplayer... and then read through all these pages to catch up with everything.
I seem to be in a minority (along with one or two others) - but I enjoyed the programme. The way they showed the research process wasn't perfect but I thought they managed to capture the basic spirit of the kind of journey we go on. And we did see him do a little research himself which people often complain we don't see.
I would not have kept in the bit with the grandson which was a bit pointless as he didn't actually know very much , or the Consuela mistake which were a bit pointless. And although it was very funny, I would not have kept the great aunt in either. Which would have left lots of room to at least try to investigate what happened to Georgina, or look further into what happened to Frederick's family after bankruptcy...
I like the theory that she maybe went to Shanghai with Frederick's family but feel that she either married or most likely just lived with someone and changed her name.
I also think it interesting that Cyril knew about his grandfather being a stockbroker and would have liked to have looked into the school records more. There must be more than just those few entries for a child wo was there for more than 10 years.
That said, I did find the ups and downs of the story interesting.
I quite liked Rupert Everett - and at least it was not another holocaust story like last series had nearly every week.
Milly
-
I also think it interesting that Cyril knew about his grandfather being a stockbroker and would have liked to have looked into the school records more.
I quite liked Rupert Everett - and at least it was not another holocaust story like last series had nearly every week.
Milly
I think perhaps Cyril was only introduced as confirmation that other descendants had heard there was an ancestor who was a stockbroker.
-
I think that in the '81 census that Georgina Teague? was a "dressmaker", how many of these dressmakers were "dressmakers" I wonder?
-
I'm sure there were lots of real dressmakers - they didn't all come from China in those days :)
-
I think Grothenwell might be implying that "dressmaker" could be a euphemism for "lady of the night". ;D ;D
Lizzie
-
I think Grothenwell might be implying that "dressmaker" could be a euphemism for "lady of the night". ;D ;D
Lizzie
true, but without evidence it is a slur on the character of the individual concerned and also a poor basis for any investigation.
-
I think Grothenwell might be implying that "dressmaker" could be a euphemism for "lady of the night". ;D ;D
Lizzie
true, but without evidence it is a slur on the character of the individual concerned and also a poor basis for any investigation.
I wasn't implying that she was a lady of the night, so there was no slur. But if she was I wouldn't say it was a slur, our ancestors did lots of things in order to survive hard times, and I for one would never criticise or slur an individual for what they did in those times.
However as I have discovered on this fine site, "dressmaking" was, as Lizzie says, a euphemism for a trade, one of the oldest in history I am informed, even before the need for dresses. :-*
My question was not directly about Georgina but a general one, are there any studies that tell the ratio and or likelihood? Was it the areas that the "dressmakers" stayed that guided the implication that they told this fib to the census taker? How was it discovered that Dressmaker was the term used and not say Stocking maker?
-
My question was not directly about Georgina but a general one, are there any studies that tell the ratio and or likelihood? Was it the areas that the "dressmakers" stayed that guided the implication that they told this fib to the census taker? How was it discovered that Dressmaker was the term used and not say Stocking maker?
Good points and I for one would like to know the origins of this particular euphemism.
Are we simply pandering to the prejudices of Victorian Census Enumerators or is it a later invention ?
It is too easy to jump to conclusions and create completely the wrong picture - which was my difficulty with Rupert Everett.
Although I have no doubts that at least some of the "ladies of the night" may have been forced into that line of work due to poverty and circumstances there are records of others from privileged backgrounds who chose to be involved in that line of work - were they listed as dressmakers ?
-
I read somewhere that straw plaiters were often also plying the other trade but like to take the trade as written I have a dozen or so straw plaiters on the tree :) hope that the majority were"good" girls rather than "god time" girls ;D
Trees lowering the tone somewhat
-
The sad fact is that at this time many women turned to prostitution to keep themselves & their families fed, housed & clothed.
Dressmakers, like milliners (another known trade where they moonlighted on the streets) were so poorly paid that they often had no other option.
They would often work in "dark, dank conditions" at the back of some posh shop, do think "house of elliott" where they looked after their staff! And their skills in dressmaking would be exploited, and I do say skills as they had to be able to sew seams etc. perfectly, with small even stitching or it would all be taken apart to be started again.
Taken from 1906: Every Man for Himself! - Maisie Robson -
Milliner: 2 years' apprenticeship & no wages paid. A premium of £10-£20 is ofter required. Assistants can earn from £10-£30. This is as the shopkeeper not worker, no mention of them here.
The subject of dressmaking is written about twice firstly as a shop owner (for the middle to upper class woman!) and secondly for the worker where it looks like Maisie thought that it was a good occupation - maybe it was more reputable by 1906. But even so after a 2 year apprenticeship with pay you could earn up to £2.00 per week.
-
I think the simple fact was that women who did resort to prostitution to make a living could not put that down on the census form, so they chose an occupation which didn't involve leaving the house much. However, to assume that every woman who described themselves as dressmakers were prostitutes is plainly absurd, because before the industrial revolution a substantial part of the clothing industry was done by homeworkers.
-
I think the simple fact was that women who did resort to prostitution to make a living could not put that down on the census form, so they chose an occupation which didn't involve leaving the house much. However, to assume that every woman who described themselves as dressmakers were prostitutes is plainly absurd, because before the industrial revolution a substantial part of the clothing industry was done by homeworkers.
That's a point well made, Nick. I can recommend the website http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/, which contains all the census reports from 1801. The General Report from each census breaks down the population by occupation. Many of the occupations stated by individuals were "standardised" by the enumerators, and then classified by the census clerks according to strict guidelines (they derived a large dictionary of occupations for this purpose). Very few people working on farms would have called themselves an "ag lab" for instance - this was a term invented for the purpose of the census. In 1891, over 400,000 women were listed as milliners, dressmakers or staymakers (as well as 4,000 men). Whilst, I am sure, these terms would have been used euphemistically in some cases, they would have described the woman's occupation correctly in the vast majority of cases.
Going back to the census report, the point was often made in the reports that people exaggerated their occupations. In one of the reports, for instance, it states that commercial travellers (usually a middle-class occupation) were often no more than hawkers. I can find no similar suggestion for dressmakers.
-
There's two households here - one is definitely a brothel and the other is a family house where the head is a washer woman with a school aged daughter and her lodgers are a dressmaker and a prostitute.
Are we saying the second household is denying it's full of prostitutes?
Andrews Street 1841 census
MONTAGUE 15 Brothel Keeper
CUMMINGS Ann 20 Prostitute
SMITH Jamina 15 Prostitute
COCHRANE Joan 15 Prostitute
MCKENZIE Ann 15 Prostitute
SMITH Jessie 15 Prostitute
=
Blackfriars Wynd 1841
WATSON Janet 35 Washer Woman
WATSON Isabella 12 -
YULE Ann 35 Prostitute
ROSE Margt 25 Dress Maker
-
There are other terms for 'prostitute' to be found in the censuses - terms which are true euphemisms, rather than other genuine occupations. One that springs to mind is "nymph of the pavement" :)
sorry I can't provide a reference, but I've definitely seen it during my perusings.
-
There are other terms for 'prostitute' to be found in the censuses - terms which are true euphemisms, rather than other genuine occupations. One that springs to mind is "nymph of the pavement" :)
sorry I can't provide a reference, but I've definitely seen it during my perusings.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,458136.msg3200485.html#msg3200485
-
There you go. Stan's the man! ;D
-
There's two households here - one is definitely a brothel and the other is a family house where the head is a washer woman with a school aged daughter and her lodgers are a dressmaker and a prostitute.
Are we saying the second household is denying it's full of prostitutes?
Andrews Street 1841 census
MONTAGUE 15 Brothel Keeper
CUMMINGS Ann 20 Prostitute
SMITH Jamina 15 Prostitute
COCHRANE Joan 15 Prostitute
MCKENZIE Ann 15 Prostitute
SMITH Jessie 15 Prostitute
=
Blackfriars Wynd 1841
WATSON Janet 35 Washer Woman
WATSON Isabella 12 -
YULE Ann 35 Prostitute
ROSE Margt 25 Dress Maker
What we are I am saying is what evidence do you have to the contrary regarding their professions ?
As said there are plenty of descriptions of prostitutes and the sex workers (it wasn't illegal for much of that period)
-
My question was not directly about Georgina but a general one, are there any studies that tell the ratio and or likelihood? Was it the areas that the "dressmakers" stayed that guided the implication that they told this fib to the census taker? How was it discovered that Dressmaker was the term used and not say Stocking maker?
Good points and I for one would like to know the origins of this particular euphemism.
Are we simply pandering to the prejudices of Victorian Census Enumerators or is it a later invention ?
It is too easy to jump to conclusions and create completely the wrong picture - which was my difficulty with Rupert Everett.
Although I have no doubts that at least some of the "ladies of the night" may have been forced into that line of work due to poverty and circumstances there are records of others from privileged backgrounds who chose to be involved in that line of work - were they listed as dressmakers ?
I'm not convinced that "dressmaker" was officially a euphemism for prostitute. It was possibly the case that a lot of dressmakers were also prostitutes (or vice versa!). For many, it would have been a low-paid job, even no pay at all while they were still learning the skills, and they had to do what they could to get by. On the other hand, there would have been plenty of respectable dressmakers as well.
Those from privileged backgrounds that you mention - there is no earthly reason why they would describe themselves as dressmakers. Not sure what you mean by "the prejudices of Victorian Census Enumerators".
One might compare the use of "actress" in the more recent past: sometimes used in a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" kind of way. It would be clear from the context. As the actress said to the bishop .... ;)
-
I skimmed over something I found on google which was a study of Prostitution at that time- can't find it again ::) However, I think the point was made that there were many trades which were linked - mainly because of the reasons already stated here- poverty/young women etc. Also, I think, piece work was growing so again young women were employed in the home, sewing for a factory owner.
For some of these, the fact that you were in your own home must have made it easier to have this other trade to supplement their meagre earnings.
One way of identifying possibly,would be the area. It would be of little use working in the middle of nowhere, so perhaps some dressmakers or similar homeworkers, who were living in ports/inner cities etc may have been prostitutes too or using the word as a cover.
It must have been an awful life for many.
(thanks Rupert for the diversion).
-
There's two households here - one is definitely a brothel and the other is a family house where the head is a washer woman with a school aged daughter and her lodgers are a dressmaker and a prostitute.
Are we saying the second household is denying it's full of prostitutes?
Andrews Street 1841 census
MONTAGUE 15 Brothel Keeper
CUMMINGS Ann 20 Prostitute
SMITH Jamina 15 Prostitute
COCHRANE Joan 15 Prostitute
MCKENZIE Ann 15 Prostitute
SMITH Jessie 15 Prostitute
=
Blackfriars Wynd 1841
WATSON Janet 35 Washer Woman
WATSON Isabella 12 -
YULE Ann 35 Prostitute
ROSE Margt 25 Dress Maker
What we are I am saying is what evidence do you have to the contrary regarding their professions ?
As said there are plenty of descriptions of prostitutes and the sex workers (it wasn't illegal for much of that period)
Something didn't have to be illegal for you to be driven out of your village. My grandfather got one of the village girls pregnant, and his whole family (who were very much part of the village church) had to leave because of the shame brought upon them.
-
There's two households here - one is definitely a brothel and the other is a family house where the head is a washer woman with a school aged daughter and her lodgers are a dressmaker and a prostitute.
Are we saying the second household is denying it's full of prostitutes?
Andrews Street 1841 census
MONTAGUE 15 Brothel Keeper
CUMMINGS Ann 20 Prostitute
SMITH Jamina 15 Prostitute
COCHRANE Joan 15 Prostitute
MCKENZIE Ann 15 Prostitute
SMITH Jessie 15 Prostitute
=
Blackfriars Wynd 1841
WATSON Janet 35 Washer Woman
WATSON Isabella 12 -
YULE Ann 35 Prostitute
ROSE Margt 25 Dress Maker
What we are I am saying is what evidence do you have to the contrary regarding their professions ?
As said there are plenty of descriptions of prostitutes and the sex workers (it wasn't illegal for much of that period)
I'm actually quite shocked to think that future am.researchers will look at the 1951, 1961 and 1971 census and think that one of my village neighbours who took in washing was a prostitute because that's another name for one. Not to mention the busy dressmaker in this small town who during the 1980's and 1990's often did a professional job taking in and shortening my clothes because my sewing proficiency isn't good enough.
-
Before we get back on track discussing WDYTYA an Rupert Everett - can anyone tell me where this "dressmaker" thing came from. This assertion pops up every now and then on Rootschat - (if you search dressmaker + prostitution you find quite a few threads. I've had a look through some of them but they just seem to state this as a fact without saying where the fact originally came from.
is it true? if so how do we know? or is it just a genealogical urban myth?
Milly ;D
-
I skimmed over something I found on google which was a study of Prostitution at that time- can't find it again ::) However, I think the point was made that there were many trades which were linked - mainly because of the reasons already stated here- poverty/young women etc. Also, I think, piece work was growing so again young women were employed in the home, sewing for a factory owner.
For some of these, the fact that you were in your own home must have made it easier to have this other trade to supplement their meagre earnings.
One way of identifying possibly,would be the area. It would be of little use working in the middle of nowhere, so perhaps some dressmakers or similar homeworkers, who were living in ports/inner cities etc may have been prostitutes too or using the word as a cover.
It must have been an awful life for many.
(thanks Rupert for the diversion).
Yes, I realise that in a recession or a slump when work has dried up, there's nothing left to pawn and family or church poor box or Salvation Army can't or won't help then another course of action other than suicide needs to be taken.
-
Before we get back on track discussing WDYTYA an Rupert Everett - can anyone tell me where this "dressmaker" thing came from. This assertion pops up every now and then on Rootschat - (if you search dressmaker + prostitution you find quite a few threads. I've had a look through some of them but they just seem to state this as a fact without saying where the fact originally came from.
is it true? if so how do we know? or is it just a genealogical urban myth?
No, it's not a "fact". It seems to be a confusion bred from the fact that some women in low-paid occupations resorted to prostitution in order to earn a living. Most, if not all of them, would not regard prostitution as their principal occupation, hence their description of themselves as dressmakers, milliners etc was legitimate.
-
I was just looking 1881 up for someone and decided to check re occupation- 425 women are classed as prostitutes and although I haven't looked at the census entries, it looks as though the majority are 'inmate'; 'pauper' and 'prisoner'.
Interestingly, there are 122 people with occupation of 'thief'.
There are some occupations that you are not going to declare and therefore use an alternative. However, as has been said, one was not always the other.
If you have a dressmaker ancestor this is informative:
http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/ugoretz1.html
This is the other report I was reading (skimming over really ::))
http://www.rootschat.com/links/09cy/
(I did the 'shrink link' for the above report and have tried to connect via this link and it doesn't work for me!) For anyone intersted, perhaps 'Prostitution, prevention and reform' might get you there in your browser.
Sorry-
heywood
-
I have learned something new. Certainly had not considered that for example a dressmaker might have implied something different. I have a lot to learn about this family history lark.
-
I have learned something new. Certainly had not considered that for example a dressmaker might have implied something different. I have a lot to learn about this family history lark.
Unfortunately that is exactly what some of us are questioning.
Where and when did this "fact" come to light - prostitution was not illegal for much of the time period in question and while it may have been seen as socially inferior to other occupations it did not stop it being recorded as their occupation in census records.
Is it an "urban myth" ?
-
I don't think it is an urban myth - there is serious research about it. However,I don't think it was confined to dressmakers so perhaps the repetition of dressmaker= prostitute is the problem.
It may not have been illegal but there was criminality surrounding it - soliciting/brothels etc and also the social and moral views surrounding it would not encourage publication of one's occupation.
-
It may not have been illegal but there was criminality surrounding it - soliciting/brothels etc and also the social and moral views surrounding it would not encourage publication of one's occupation.
For much of the Victorian period there was no legislation making activity involved with sex illegal whether as prostitute or brothel keeper - the first major piece of legislation in this respect was a requirement for the women involved to be subjected to a severe medical exam. In some respects this legislation set the benchmark for later pieces of the law which made it illegal to sell or offer for sale any sexual activity while at the same time basically exempting the male customers.
As to serious research - can anyone point out an actual source for this ?
PS if wikipedia is to be believed it is not dressmaker which is the euphemism but seamstress - but again no source is attributed for this claim.
-
Something didn't need to be illegal in Victorian society to make people outcasts. If someone could keep the immoral source of their income secret, I'm sure that they would. It's as simple as that.
-
If dressmaker=prostitute, who made all the dresses then? ;)
-
Good point :) :) :)
-
If dressmaker=prostitute, who made all the dresses then? ;)
Maybe the prostitute =dressmaker!!! LOL
Suz
-
Something didn't need to be illegal in Victorian society to make people outcasts. If someone could keep the immoral source of their income secret, I'm sure that they would. It's as simple as that.
It's not as simple as that ... yes Victorian Society was extremely hypocritical, , especially later in the period (at one point records show that the Bishop of Winchester owned all of the brothels in Southwark and no doubt made a good income from them).
What I am trying to question here is the assumption that dressmaker = prostitute. Early in the Victorian period sex was not considered "immoral", that only came about later as society in one of it's many swings rebelled against the liberality of the pre Victorian period.
It's been declared a well known "fact" that dressmaker is a euphemism for prostitute but no one can point to evidential sources for this Mayhews Treatise on prostitution in London which was published in 1862 makes no mention of dressmakers.
-
If dressmaker=prostitute, who made all the dresses then? ;)
Maybe the prostitute =dressmaker!!! LOL
Suz
:) :)
-
Still not back on Rupert ... sorry. :(
I have a particularly interesting family, my Turners. My 2nd gt grandmother Diana had two bastard children. Her mother Ann Tilley had a bastard child which also had a bastard child.
Every one of these women were either Dressmakers or Seamstresses or in the workhouse.
I think Diana moved into the workhouse when my gt grandfather Thomas was about three. That was when he was baptised; he was born three years earlier. His elder brother William was also baptised in 1857 aged 7.
Diana and her mother may have been prostitutes. I don't know ... I don't care. :) I will love them as much either way.
Paul
-
That's the spirit Paul at least you have arrived and that's the important thing. We all have some strange goings on along the branches of our trees these diversions from the usual make the pursuit much more colourful and interesting though there are some things we turn up best not related to Great grans or spinster great aunts. There but for the grace of God walk I and thee and all mankind
Trees
-
Still not back on Rupert ... sorry. :(
I have a particularly interesting family, my Turners. My 2nd gt grandmother Diana had two bastard children. Her mother Ann Tilley had a bastard child which also had a bastard child.
Every one of these women were either Dressmakers or Seamstresses or in the workhouse.
I think Diana moved into the workhouse when my gt grandfather Thomas was about three. That was when he was baptised; he was born three years earlier. His elder brother William was also baptised in 1857 aged 7.
Diana and her mother may have been prostitutes. I don't know ... I don't care. :) I will love them as much either way.
Paul
They may or may not have been prostitutes which as you say is not a problem and having illegitimate children does not make automatically put them in that category. Although I haven't come across any in my own lines (not that I know of anyway) I hope I too wouldn't have a problem with accepting what they had to do to survive.
One of the complaints made in this thread against Rupert Everett were the erroneous flights of fancy he indulged in when presented with only a little information about an ancestor and yet we have some people, who are probably very meticulous in their research, who appear to blithely accept the dressmaker/seamstress = prostitute "fact" without question. I find that very puzzling.
-
We really can`t make such wholesale assumptions about the meaning of the word "dressmaker" .
My great grandmother was a dressmaker and I know that she actually took in sewing for a top M/C Ladies Outfitters ( Affleck & Brown`s )because my dad used to accompany her (about 1900) when she went to the shop with completed work and also to pick up the next lot.
She is described as such on census returns whilst still living with her parents in Lincolshire.
There were probably some dressmakers who did have a "second income" but what hard times they lived in and what will a woman with children to feed not do for them?
After all society women indulged in activities outside marriage and what`s the difference berween a wealthy person having numerous affairs when they had no idea what it was to ever go hungry or see their children( when they did see them !!)hungry-- the difference is absolute need.
An old lady I used to know once said about prostitutes --" They are only selling what is their own". I don`t think you can argue with that. I`m on their side Viktoria.
-
Has anyone found any male dressmakers?
Are we to assume that any such were transvestites? (!)
(At this point I need a smiley with a tongue in it's cheek!)
Phil
-
Has anyone found any male dressmakers?
Are we to assume that any such were transvestites? (!)
(At this point I need a smiley with a tongue in it's cheek!)
Phil
Tailors? Now in research for rootschat, I notice lots of tailors were irish.My goodness -what assumptions could be made there ::)
I think the whole discussion just highlights the abject poverty that some of our ancestors endured and in this particular case how women were exploited.
When I had connections with the law (right side ;)) many years ago- the women (prostitutes) were regarded as the criminals- the men (clients ::)) not so.
I had a couple of washerwomen as ancestors... must have led very clean lives :D
-
One of my ancestors had four illegitimate children and never married. She was a dressmaker in Turriff. I must admit that I was aware of the 'dressmaker' euphemism. He four illegitimate children did make me raise an eyebrow.
I am, however, pretty sure that she was not a prostitute as she seems to know who the fathers were (even though they were not all named on birth certificates). Her mother and father must have been demented as Margaret and her children lived with them until the end of their days.
-
It seems a case of "Not all dressmakers were prostitutes, but all prostitutes were dressmakers!"
I wonder if the same assumptions will apply to today's massage therapists in the future?!!
Tony
-
It seems a case of "Not all dressmakers were prostitutes, but all prostitutes were dressmakers!"
??? Surely it's more accurate to say "Not all dressmakers were prostitutes, and not all prostitutes were dressmakers".
Or even better, "Some dressmakers were prostitutes, and some prostitutes were dressmakers".
-
I looked again at 1881 to see who is declared as a prostitute and it looks so sad- inmate/convict/prisoner/patient seem to be most. I haven't looked all through but in the first indexes there are few who seem to be in households. Interestingly, many of those are in Devon/Cornwall.
I thought to test this hypothesis, I would look at one person in the 1871 census. The one lady I chose who was of a suitable age was... a... seamstress in 1871. :'(
Another who is in different workhouses in both censuses is a needlewoman in 1871 and a prostitute in 1881.
The poor women.
-
??? Surely it's more accurate to say "Not all dressmakers were prostitutes, and not all prostitutes were dressmakers".
Or even better, "Some dressmakers were prostitutes, and some prostitutes were dressmakers".
How about "Not all dressmakers were prostitutes, but most prostitutes seemed to be dressmakers!" !!!
Assumptions are never very accurate and I was merely echoing the assumptions made elsewhere!
-
I looked again at 1881 to see who is declared as a prostitute and it looks so sad- inmate/convict/prisoner/patient seem to be most. I haven't looked all through but in the first indexes there are few who seem to be in households. Interestingly, many of those are in Devon/Cornwall.
I thought to test this hypothesis, I would look at one person in the 1871 census. The one lady I chose who was of a suitable age was... a... seamstress in 1871. :'(
Another who is in different workhouses in both censuses is a needlewoman in 1871 and a prostitute in 1881.
The poor women.
Rofl that made me smile after recently reading some old copies of The West Briton and the 'bawdy houses' that seemed so popular in Truro and Redruth ::) I'm so proud to be Cornish ::)
Loved the Rupert Everett episode, I thought it was going to be a boring trawl through the upper crust of society, instead it was utterly riveting!
-
getting back to Rupert Everrett... and specifically a remark made by either himself or someone else regarding Jacob. It was a remark something along the lines of Rupert having 'black' ancestry.... what the??? Is there any indication that this 'Jacob' is a direct ancestor of Rupert?? No I don't think so so how can he have 'black' ancestry??
-
you are all so lucky to have seen it.. in australia we just get to watch series one over and over again. i am so looking forward to something different.
-
Although a bit late in replying, he got my back up a few times. He went down like a lead brick as far as I'm concerned.
Just hope the next series get a few more subjects who derserve to be on there, not like this 'fop'.
Steve. :)
-
Um... I realise I'm a long way out of date... but was watching this episode today and also got so fascinated by Georgina who had to give up her son... Maybe because I'm a mother?!... These things always bug me- I can't imagine giving up my 3 yr old. How sad that she then just seems to vanish from his life. She really seems to have vanished on searching too... Can't even find a death! But I guess she could have used a variation of her name or just any name... or remarried or died or emigrated... but I thought, if it were me, I would stay close if I could...
While looking for info about this I came across rootschat and saw that there were a few folks who had had similar ideas to me so when I spotted this I thought I'd share it.. it may be nothing... but I'm unlikely to find anyone interested anywhere else (apart from Rupert Everett, of course and I wouldn't blame him for thinking I were a total nutcase if I got in contact with such a random thing!!
Whilst looking through records I spotted this in the 1901 census: A Martha Evered (married) inmate at the District Gore Farm Asylum and Convalescent Hospital in Darenth, Kent which would may been just up the road from where her son, Cyril was in the home for little boys... Maybe her?... Maybe coincidence?!... Either way- I probably should move on! ;-)
RG 13/707
-
Um... I realise I'm a long way out of date... but was watching this episode today and also got so fascinated by Georgina who had to give up her son... Maybe because I'm a mother?!... These things always bug me- I can't imagine giving up my 3 yr old. How sad that she then just seems to vanish from his life. She really seems to have vanished on searching too... Can't even find a death! But I guess she could have used a variation of her name or just any name... or remarried or died or emigrated... but I thought, if it were me, I would stay close if I could...
While looking for info about this I came across rootschat and saw that there were a few folks who had had similar ideas to me so when I spotted this I thought I'd share it.. it may be nothing... but I'm unlikely to find anyone interested anywhere else (apart from Rupert Everett, of course and I wouldn't blame him for thinking I were a total nutcase if I got in contact with such a random thing!!
Whilst looking through records I spotted this in the 1901 census: A Martha Evered (married) inmate at the District Gore Farm Asylum and Convalescent Hospital in Darenth, Kent which would may been just up the road from where her son, Cyril was in the home for little boys... Maybe her?... Maybe coincidence?!... Either way- I probably should move on! ;-)
RG 13/707
Um... it was all coincedence. She and her daughter appear in this census and together with her husband William Evered in 1891 and 1911! Got a bit delirious I think and will now move on!