|
||||||||
Who Do you Think You Are? New Series |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#276 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stalking David and Neal
Posts: 38,045
|
Quote:
Last nights episode was a bit meh for me. Not as good as last weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#277 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
#278 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,359
|
Quote:
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#279 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#280 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,847
|
Quote:
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.
I didn't enjoy it as much as last weeks but it was still quite good. Who is it next week? |
|
|
|
|
|
#281 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,237
|
Quote:
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
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#282 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#283 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
|
Quote:
Yes, and it was 5 shillings per week per child, wasn't it?
Yes, 10 bob a week was a lot back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#284 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
|
Quote:
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#285 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
|
Quote:
Yes, 10 bob a week was a lot back then.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#286 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,460
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#287 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#288 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
|
Quote:
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 ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#289 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#290 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,153
|
Quote:
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#291 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#292 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,883
|
Quote:
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 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#293 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 261
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#294 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#295 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,092
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#296 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: South of England
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
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! |
|
|
|
|
|
#297 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,460
|
Quote:
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#298 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 16,684
|
Quote:
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#299 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,359
|
Quote:
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/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#300 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 52,176
|
Quote:
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. Leslie Thomas and Bruce Oldfield were Barnado's boys. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:55.





maths was never my strong point