DS Forums

 
 

Who Do you Think You Are? New Series


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-08-2013, 11:33
Agent Krycek
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stalking David and Neal
Posts: 38,045
Last nights episode was a bit meh for me. Not as good as last weeks.
Think I had a similar reaction, felt curiously uninvolved with it, apart from the very end when she spoke about her Dad
Agent Krycek is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-08-2013, 12:02
sheepiefarm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,113
Last night's ep felt a bit too much like a lesson in social history with Lesley Sharp being little more than an investigative reporter.
It was a decent enough episode but I struggled to get involved in the narrative.
sheepiefarm is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 12:20
yenston
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,359
I thought it was a bit odd towards the end that she spent so much time following George's history when he wasn't even related to her.
I agree. Think they went off on a bit of a tangent here. Also think the whole thing was given a bit of a rose tinted view of events. I've knowledge of both subjects covered in last nights episode from my own family- boarding out and child migration to Canada. I think Lesley gave Charles altruistic motives when I'm sure the money he was paid might have been more of an incentive.

Child migration to Canada was an appalling scheme and while I'm sure some found good homes, far more were treated badly and had a dreadful time. They were treated little better than slaves, and not all of them were, as was painted in the Barnardos propaganda, ragamuffin street children who'd been rescued from a life of poverty and sent to Canada for a so called better life.
yenston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 12:39
TrishaS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
I agree. Think they went off on a bit of a tangent here. Also think the whole thing was given a bit of a rose tinted view of events. I've knowledge of both subjects covered in last nights episode from my own family- boarding out and child migration to Canada. I think Lesley gave Charles altruistic motives when I'm sure the money he was paid might have been more of an incentive.

Child migration to Canada was an appalling scheme and while I'm sure some found good homes, far more were treated badly and had a dreadful time. They were treated little better than slaves, and not all of them were, as was painted in the Barnardos propaganda, ragamuffin street children who'd been rescued from a life of poverty and sent to Canada for a so called better life.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that ( BIB)

Someone shot me down on facebook when I said the same, saying 5 shillings was only equal to £22 in todays money so it wasn't the money. But I think 5 shillings was quite a lot back then and would buy more than £22 today
TrishaS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 13:35
nats18
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,847
I was thinking that too, but when she got there and talked with the Guy - I got it. He was able to tell Lesley more about her Granddad, which was all fascinating.
The way I saw it was she was adopted and so was the George kid essentially so she felt his story was similar to herself. Also I guess the connection to her great grandfather. I think it's sweet they kept the guys glasses they must have meant more to him than just glasses.
I didn't enjoy it as much as last weeks but it was still quite good. Who is it next week?
nats18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 14:05
catsitter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,237
Someone shot me down on facebook when I said the same, saying 5 shillings was only equal to £22 in todays money so it wasn't the money. But I think 5 shillings was quite a lot back then and would buy more than £22 today
Yes, and it was 5 shillings per week per child, wasn't it?
catsitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 14:08
pelicano
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,948
I'm interested to see what others thought, as I also thought it was a bit of a case of adding two and two and making five, when it came to the facts available, and making a conveniently saintly figure of Charles.

I did like Lesley a lot though, and the scenes with her biological family members were very touching.
pelicano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 14:54
TrishaS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
Yes, and it was 5 shillings per week per child, wasn't it?

Yes, 10 bob a week was a lot back then.
TrishaS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 14:56
vidalia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
The way I saw it was she was adopted and so was the George kid essentially so she felt his story was similar to herself. Also I guess the connection to her great grandfather. I think it's sweet they kept the guys glasses they must have meant more to him than just glasses.
I didn't enjoy it as much as last weeks but it was still quite good. Who is it next week?
Gary Lineker followed by Nick Hewer, Nitin Ganatra, Sarah Millican, Marianne Faithful and John Simpson.
vidalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 15:00
vidalia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
Yes, 10 bob a week was a lot back then.
Using the Retail Price Index, 10 shillings in 1900 would buy the same as £45 would today.
vidalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 15:11
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,460
I'm interested to see what others thought, as I also thought it was a bit of a case of adding two and two and making five, when it came to the facts available, and making a conveniently saintly figure of Charles.

I did like Lesley a lot though, and the scenes with her biological family members were very touching.
2 + 2 = 5 is quite common on the programme!

It was said to be common for a bride to be pregnant because it showed she was fertile. Apart from the usual reasons, it could be that Hannah had planned to marry someone else and was 'widowed' before the marriage and Charles stepped in to marry her. Perhaps her father owned a large farm as an incentive. I am sure a bit of research could have raised a few possibilities.

I enjoyed the programme and it has got me thinking of families with children boarding with them. I have always presumed they would be relatives.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 15:48
TrishaS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
Using the Retail Price Index, 10 shillings in 1900 would buy the same as £45 would today.

That's interesting as that is double what someone on facebook said.

I would love to know exactly what that 5 shillings would buy then. My grandparents bought their house for around £200 in 1920 and now its worth £230,00.

If it was worth £45 each then £90 for 2 young children, who probably worked on the land also, just makes me wonder.

Also how sad that little George couldn't have been homed with his brother or sister, poor little thing
TrishaS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 16:52
vidalia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
That's interesting as that is double what someone on facebook said.

I would love to know exactly what that 5 shillings would buy then. My grandparents bought their house for around £200 in 1920 and now its worth £230,00.

If it was worth £45 each then £90 for 2 young children, who probably worked on the land also, just makes me wonder.

Also how sad that little George couldn't have been homed with his brother or sister, poor little thing
No, they got 5 shillings for each child so 10 shillings in total - equivalent to £45 for a week for two children today, £22.50 each.
vidalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 17:55
TrishaS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
No, they got 5 shillings for each child so 10 shillings in total - equivalent to £45 for a week for two children today, £22.50 each.

Oops, got that wrong, thanks for that maths was never my strong point
TrishaS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 18:46
Prince Monalulu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,153
I agree. Think they went off on a bit of a tangent here. Also think the whole thing was given a bit of a rose tinted view of events. I've knowledge of both subjects covered in last nights episode from my own family- boarding out and child migration to Canada. I think Lesley gave Charles altruistic motives when I'm sure the money he was paid might have been more of an incentive.

Child migration to Canada was an appalling scheme and while I'm sure some found good homes, far more were treated badly and had a dreadful time. They were treated little better than slaves, and not all of them were, as was painted in the Barnardos propaganda, ragamuffin street children who'd been rescued from a life of poverty and sent to Canada for a so called better life.
I thought something similar regarding Charles and the money/cheap skivvies angle.
I can 'forgive' Lesley for taking a positive spin on it.
That said a few words about the negative aspects of boarding migration to Canada and Banardos spin doctoring would have been nice.

Lots of questions, Charle's 10 children, George's siblings, etc, but we'll have to put that down to time constraints.
We don't know how much was left on the editing room floor.
Prince Monalulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 20:00
sunnymeg
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,223
My Grandmother was in a Barnado's home from 1908-1910. She didn't have a good word to say about them. Apparently the children were beaten regularly and used as unpaid labour. She was lucky as she got out when her older sister got married and was able to provide her with a home.
sunnymeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 20:09
TrishaS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
My Grandmother was in a Barnado's home from 1908-1910. She didn't have a good word to say about them. Apparently the children were beaten regularly and used as unpaid labour. She was lucky as she got out when her older sister got married and was able to provide her with a home.
That is really sad, so glad your Grandmother was able to get out.

That is the trouble with programmes like this, they can gloss over what went on, I know they don't have the time in one hour to go into everything, but it only gives part of the story
TrishaS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 21:46
ichou
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 261
I don't intend any disrespect towards Minnie's Dad but I thought he was rather an ordinary looking guy and yet he managed to bag a wealthy wife and a stunning mistress. He must have had a great personality.
Judging by a number of famous couples, I would say there's an inverse relationship between men's looks and their ability to attract glamorous women. There's an inherent glamour and sex appeal in the aura of power and drive given off by some men, as I understand it.
ichou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 00:12
Bryant N May
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 517
Bit of an odd episode with Lesley taking a trip to Canada to follow the trail of someone who wasn't a relative but still an enjoyable one.

The point people have made about the money Charles Patient received could be valid but there's no evidence he was a bad foster parent and some evidence that he was a good one. I think the fact that George kept the spectacles he wore when he was in his care was more of an indication that he had a happy childhood than the Barnardo's report.

Incidentally in checking something that came up in the programme I found that in the 1901 census the Patients had two other children living with them at the time so maybe these were previous foster children.

Did anyone pick up or does anyone know why Barnardos shipped children out to Canada ? Was it just that they couldn't find homes in England ? Did they say why George in particular was sent there ? Had Charles passed away by then or was just maybe too old.
Bryant N May is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 00:17
Discombobulate
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,092
Bit of an odd episode with Lesley taking a trip to Canada to follow the trail of someone who wasn't a relative but still an enjoyable one.

The point people have made about the money Charles Patient received could be valid but there's no evidence he was a bad foster parent and some evidence that he was a good one. I think the fact that George kept the spectacles he wore when he was in his care was more of an indication that he had a happy childhood than the Barnardo's report.

Incidentally in checking something that came up in the programme I found that in the 1901 census the Patients had two other children living with them at the time so maybe these were previous foster children.

Did anyone pick up or does anyone know why Barnardos shipped children out to Canada ? Was it just that they couldn't find homes in England ? Did they say why George in particular was sent there ? Had Charles passed away by then or was just maybe too old.
George was sent to Canada because that is where William and Elsie had already been sent (in 1903 I think). I don't think it was Charles' age that sent George to Canada but rather his own age and the fact that his siblings had already been sent there. Charles died in 1915.
Discombobulate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 00:22
kazziecon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: South of England
Posts: 421
2 + 2 = 5 is quite common on the programme!

It was said to be common for a bride to be pregnant because it showed she was fertile. Apart from the usual reasons, it could be that Hannah had planned to marry someone else and was 'widowed' before the marriage and Charles stepped in to marry her. Perhaps her father owned a large farm as an incentive. I am sure a bit of research could have raised a few possibilities.

I enjoyed the programme and it has got me thinking of families with children boarding with them. I have always presumed they would be relatives.

BIB On researching my family I have found 'boarders' who were quite young in censuses. Often wondered who they were ... This may be the answer!
kazziecon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 00:47
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,460
BIB On researching my family I have found 'boarders' who were quite young in censuses. Often wondered who they were ... This may be the answer!
You do often find Grandchildren, Nephews, Nieces etc living with families. Probably a combination of large families so farming some children out to relatives or children sent out to work as servants or nurses.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 10:48
Fibromite59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 16,684
My Grandmother was in a Barnado's home from 1908-1910. She didn't have a good word to say about them. Apparently the children were beaten regularly and used as unpaid labour. She was lucky as she got out when her older sister got married and was able to provide her with a home.
I have also heard very bad reports of Barnado's homes. I have read several books written by children who were in them and they way they were treated was horrendous. In particular a book called "No Way Home" by Sue Martin was very disturbing, and this was in the 1960's so not that long ago really.

She was beaten, sexually abused and very badly treated. I also met someone who was in one of the homes in the 1940's and she said that they were given no love whatsoever.
Fibromite59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 11:12
yenston
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,359
Bit of an odd episode with Lesley taking a trip to Canada to follow the trail of someone who wasn't a relative but still an enjoyable one.

The point people have made about the money Charles Patient received could be valid but there's no evidence he was a bad foster parent and some evidence that he was a good one. I think the fact that George kept the spectacles he wore when he was in his care was more of an indication that he had a happy childhood than the Barnardo's report.

Incidentally in checking something that came up in the programme I found that in the 1901 census the Patients had two other children living with them at the time so maybe these were previous foster children.

Did anyone pick up or does anyone know why Barnardos shipped children out to Canada ? Was it just that they couldn't find homes in England ? Did they say why George in particular was sent there ? Had Charles passed away by then or was just maybe too old.



Over 100,000 children were sent to Canada from British Children's Homes. There's more information on these websites- http://canadianbritishhomechildren.weebly.com/

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....hhomechildren/
yenston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 12:54
dome
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 52,176
I have also heard very bad reports of Barnado's homes. I have read several books written by children who were in them and they way they were treated was horrendous. In particular a book called "No Way Home" by Sue Martin was very disturbing, and this was in the 1960's so not that long ago really.

She was beaten, sexually abused and very badly treated. I also met someone who was in one of the homes in the 1940's and she said that they were given no love whatsoever.
You also hear good reports and success stories.
Leslie Thomas and Bruce Oldfield were Barnado's boys.
dome is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:55.