Who Do You Think You Are, RTE1

sweet-rasmus

New season of Who Do You Think You Are starts next Monday at 9.35 on RTE1 That's Monday 14th September. Yey! Just saw an add for it...

pinkypinky

Starts with the RTÉ star du jour: Ryan Tubridy

Snickers Man

What's not to know about Ryan Tubridy? His uncles were the Fianna Fail brothers Niall and David Andrews. Their father was CS "Todd" Andrews, an anti-treaty gunman who became head of CIE and ran the railways into the ground.

Maybe there's a few ancestors that he didn't know about but if it just highlights what an interesting bloke Todd Andrews was, there's no need for a TV programme about it. you could just read his memoirs.

OldJay

Snickers Man wrote: »

What's not to know about Ryan Tubridy? His uncles were the Fianna Fail brothers Niall and David Andrews. Their father was CS "Todd" Andrews, an anti-treaty gunman who became head of CIE and ran the railways into the ground.

Maybe there's a few ancestors that he didn't know about but if it just highlights what an interesting bloke Todd Andrews was, there's no need for a TV programme about it. you could just read his memoirs.

It can go way further back than that. In the BBC version, Matthew Pinsent (ex-Olympic rower turned BBC sports presenter) traced his family all the way back to the first line of Tudors in England, for example. David Suchet, the actor, traced his family back to Jews exiled to the Pale of Settlement in Belorussia

Snickers Man

That's as maybe. The fact is that it's very difficult to trace Irish Catholic ancestors back beyond the first half of the nineteenth century, unless they were extremely wealthy or prominent. There were no centralised records until the 1840s (and a lot of them were destroyed in various troubles) so the only way to find out is based on church records, which are incomplete and uncentralised.

Plus the fact that once you get back into the 18th century, you're into the Penal days when the church was largely underground anyway so you're screwed every which way.

Emme

Snickers Man wrote: »

That's as maybe. The fact is that it's very difficult to trace Irish Catholic ancestors back beyond the first half of the nineteenth century, unless they were extremely wealthy or prominent. There were no centralised records until the 1840s (and a lot of them were destroyed in various troubles) so the only way to find out is based on church records, which are incomplete and uncentralised.

Plus the fact that once you get back into the 18th century, you're into the Penal days when the church was largely underground anyway so you're screwed every which way.

Same for Irish Prods (non Ascendancy). A lot of them were tenant farmers or labourers and they were in the same boat as Catholics. A fire destroyed a lot of the important records in the early 20th century.

Ponster

Snickers Man wrote: »

Plus the fact that once you get back into the 18th century, you're into the Penal days when the church was largely underground anyway so you're screwed every which way.

Yep.

I can trace most of my family lines back to 1850 where suddenly everything dies as there are no more records while my Welsh wife can go back to about 1700 so some family branches.

Ponster

Emme wrote: »

A fire destroyed a lot of the important records in the early 20th century.

While others were destroyed on purpose by government order; This annoys me on an almost weekly basis when I think about it.

pinkypinky

They* were destroyed with the mistaken belief that there was a second copy of each return, as there had been in England and Wales. It is not generally believed to have been malicious. It does make me mad too though!



*some of the 19th century census returns

Emme

Apparently Ryan Tubridy's family has links to British royal bloodlines even though he is from a strong nationalist background. It's on RTE1 tonight at 9.30pm, Who Do You Think You Are?

I guess we're all a mix of everything and we don't know it. It makes all the in-fighting on these boards look ridiculous.

amen

A fire destroyed a lot of the important records in the early 20th century.

yes a fire caused by Anti-Treaty elements camped in the four courts during the irish civil war. The british very nicely "loaned" the free state government some guns and a naval ship to bombard the anti-treaty elements out.

Should have done it sooner...

Emme

Snickers Man wrote: »

What's not to know about Ryan Tubridy? His uncles were the Fianna Fail brothers Niall and David Andrews. Their father was CS "Todd" Andrews, an anti-treaty gunman who became head of CIE and ran the railways into the ground.

Maybe there's a few ancestors that he didn't know about but if it just highlights what an interesting bloke Todd Andrews was, there's no need for a TV programme about it. you could just read his memoirs.

There were ancestors he didn't know about, King John who signed the Magna Carta in England back in the mists of time. I'm still finding it hard to connect Ryan Tubridy with English royalty, but I suppose it was before Henry Tudor or those Saxe-Coburg-Gothas (Windsors) so it's not as bad as it seems. Ryan Tubridy will never live it down - from now on his seat in the Late Late Show will be known as the throne - all guests bow down to the host...:P:P:P

Wacko

I find Tubridy very irritating, but I like the program so I got past that. I definitly thought this episode boded well for the rest of the series, I thought the first series was a little bit more of a holiday program than a history one. I enjoyed it, can't wait for the rest of them.

Balmed Out

That was really very good.

Snickers Man

Emme wrote: »

There were ancestors he didn't know about, King John who signed the Magna Carta in England back in the mists of time. I'm still finding it hard to connect Ryan Tubridy with English royalty, but I suppose it was before Henry Tudor or those Saxe-Coburg-Gothas (Windsors) so it's not as bad as it seems. Ryan Tubridy will never live it down - from now on his seat in the Late Late Show will be known as the throne - all guests bow down to the host...:P:P:P

I take it all back. King Edward III. Bloody Hell.

Mind you, he was only able to go back that far because of well-to-do English ancestry in his fairly recent family tree.

I thought that his reaction on finding out that one of his republican grandparents (great grandparents?) had married the daughter of a British army officer (albeit one from the Royal Army Medical Corps, a fact not highlighted on the show) was a bit crass. "Like, ohmigod, I'm going to get such a slagging here".

There can be few people in Ireland who do NOT have an ancestral connection with the British Army. Indeed, I suspect the majority have both republican AND army ancestors. I know I do.

But it was amazing to see how far back the gentry in England can go. I wonder how many of the rest of us have royal bloodlines.

pinkypinky

I thought it was a very good program. The minute I heard where he was headed in the UK, I thought "royal ancestry". A huge number of people would have some royal ancestry. There's been several on the BBC version. And also, the monarchy has the best researched tree so if you're even a minor scion, you'll find your way in. His grandmother is what's known as a "gateway ancestor", she lead to other already established and researched pedigrees.

babycheeks

So who's up next week does anyone know?

Judgement Day

I didn't see the show but I would take the Edward III connection with a pinch of salt as I have also recently found connections to the same but only through the internet and we all know how reliable that can be!

PS Whatever about Edward III, I am bloody sure that I have no connection with anybody related to Todd 'Close down the Railways' Andrews.

Emme

babycheeks wrote: »

So who's up next week does anyone know?

Ivan Yates. Place your bets now!:D

sweet-rasmus

I have to say, I did enjoy yesterday's program. I did think Ryan was gonna do my head in... but I was surprised to enjoy it!

Snickers Man

Judgement Day wrote: »

I didn't see the show but I would take the Edward III connection with a pinch of salt as I have also recently found connections to the same but only through the internet and we all know how reliable that can be!

Depends where you look. I find this site to be a pretty reliable record of royal connections.

Interestingly, its trail runs a bit cold when you work forwards from Edward III to try to find Ryan Tubridy's ancestors. You can find the connections mentioned in the program from Edward III through his son Edmund of Langley and his son Richard of Conisburgh, who was apparently beheaded for conspiring against Henry IV.

His son was Richard Plantagenet, aka Richard of York, who kicked off the Wars of the Roses. His daughter was Anne Plantagenet who became the Duchess of Exeter. Her daughter was Anne St Leger who married Sir George Manners, as stated in the program.

At this point, the directory of Royal Genealogical data diverges from the line (sorry) spun in the program. Tubridy was told that Sir George Manners and Anne St Leger had a daughter called Katherine who married into the Constable family, Tubridy's direct ancestors.

The directory website however only lists one child for Sir George Manners and Anne St Leger, namely a son called Thomas who was the Earl of Rutland.On the TV programme you can see, if you look closely, that the family tree they have lists a few siblings of Thomas Earl of Rutland, including Katherine, but the directory does not.

Of course it may be incomplete and maybe they haven't included all the children of what was after all only a great great great grandaughter of a medieval king.

But if it's true it also means that Tubridy is a direct descendant of Edward II, Edward III's father. He's the "Proud Edward" so derisively remembered in the Scottish anthem "Flower of Scotland", the one who lost the Battle of Bannockburn. He was also alleged to have been gay, and to have been overthrown (by his son) for this crime. He was allegedly put to death by having a red hot poker shoved up his......

laobhaise

'you do you think you are?' is one of my favorite programmes but i must say i did NOT enjoy the programme featuring Ivan Yates last night. i thought is was wooden in his responce to the various discoveries and pompous in the way is consistantly cut people (the experts hired to do/comment on period) off, as if he knew everything. the genealogist in London looked terrified of him when he said 'don't look at me when you say that'.... the quips 'oh god no' on having any catholics in the family were not good... i do not believe tv should be pc, however we are essentially paying this guy to behave this way on our national broadcaster..

walrusgumble

laobhaise wrote: »

'you do you think you are?' is one of my favorite programmes but i must say i did NOT enjoy the programme featuring Ivan Yates last night. i thought is was wooden in his responce to the various discoveries and pompous in the way is consistantly cut people (the experts hired to do/comment on period) off, as if he knew everything. the genealogist in London looked terrified of him when he said 'don't look at me when you say that'.... the quips 'oh god no' on having any catholics in the family were not good... i do not believe tv should be pc, however we are essentially paying this guy to behave this way on our national broadcaster..

in fairness, i would imagine ivan was being a wee bit tongue in cheek and joking, maybe making fun of a grandparent or aunt or parent who might have said those things back in the days of yore? or maybe he is biggotted. I like to imagine its the first option. I would also imagine that he might have had an idea or two about the Jameson side of the family.

but yes it was a bit uneasy, but he is not the worse. I would imagine it might not be easy facing a camera where hundreds of thousand viewers will get to know that there is a rough/charlatan, chancer, complete hunt in the family background and the expert would possibly tacklessly spout out the discovery. (not saying the experts did, they were great)

Emme

laobhaise wrote: »

the quips 'oh god no' on having any catholics in the family were not good... i do not believe tv should be pc, however we are essentially paying this guy to behave this way on our national broadcaster..

I cringed when I saw this. I'm a Prod myself and thought it was disgraceful. In my opinion it should have been edited out but then the bigotry wouldn't have been exposed. Shame on them.

Yates came across very badly overall and what was all the fuss about Marconi? He wasn't that close a relative and Yates's ancestor made a right idiot of himself trying to cash in on Marconi's success. No wonder Marconi distanced himself.

One thing that annoys me about both Tubridy and Yates's programmes was the amount of time spend in England for both. OK, Irish ancestors who stayed home and slogged away in the background might not be as exciting, but is there any need to chase up ancestors across the water unless they emigrated?

kmick

I thought it was good enough. I thought Yates was alright and he turned up some interesting family members. A lot of high achievers in his blood line anyway. His silverware doesnt butter the turnips quip at the end was a bit staged alright.

Emme

kmick wrote: »

I thought it was good enough. I thought Yates was alright and he turned up some interesting family members. A lot of high achievers in his blood line anyway. His silverware doesnt butter the turnips quip at the end was a bit staged alright.

Yeah, the silverware! Why did he have it on display behind him when he was being interviewed at the start of the programme? That really bugged me - what was he trying to prove? OK, there are a lot of high achievers in his bloodline but that's partly because they had contacts in and outside of the family. There were plenty of ne'er do wells also, like the guy who was kicked out of the Quakers for insolvency.

OldJay

Emme wrote: »

One thing that annoys me about both Tubridy and Yates's programmes was the amount of time spend in England for both. OK, Irish ancestors who stayed home and slogged away in the background might not be as exciting, but is there any need to chase up ancestors across the water unless they emigrated?

????
You follow the story. It doesn't matter where it flippin' well goes :rolleyes:

Emme

Justind wrote: »

????
You follow the story. It doesn't matter where it flippin' well goes :rolleyes:

OK, so the story could end up going to a Raelian galaxy if you went back far enough!:P My point is that in both cases they seemed to deliberately follow up what seemed to be the grandest family connections. I found Tubridy's connections in the West of Ireland far more interesting than his royal lineage.

I'm sure we could all find connections in the UK or even Viking Scandinavia if we looked hard enough, but why follow up the grandest ancestor when others might have a more interesting story to tell?

mike65

Maybe it was followed cos it was the most interesting story.

I enjoyed it, didn't know he had such exalted family. Anyone who thought the Catholic quip was a sign of bigotory needs to get out and about a bit more I suggest. He was 'playing' with the attitudes that would have been popular "back in the day" with the well to do.

smcgiff

mike65 wrote: »

Anyone who thought the Catholic quip was a sign of bigotory needs to get out and about a bit more I suggest. He was 'playing' with the attitudes that would have been popular "back in the day" with the well to do.

Absolutely - and wasn't it his relation that said this anyway.

I think it's inevitable that they will trace lineages to the UK and further afield. We've a small island and a much travelled populace. Besides, they do this in the UK version also - and have come to Irealnd.

And if you think Tubridy was bad wait until Rosanna's story.

Emme

mike65 wrote: »

Maybe it was followed cos it was the most interesting story.

I enjoyed it, didn't know he had such exalted family. Anyone who thought the Catholic quip was a sign of bigotory needs to get out and about a bit more I suggest..

I don't agree. I'm a Prod myself and I thought the Catholic quip was totally unnecessary. Those attitudes should stay "back in the day", they have no place in Ireland today.

mike65 wrote: »

He was 'playing' with the attitudes that would have been popular "back in the day" with the well to do.

So that justifies it - they were the attitudes of the well-to-do? It wasn't just Prods who were well-to-do, there were also wealthy Catholics. Also, many well-to-do Prods back in the day looked down on poorer Prods the same way as they looked down on poor Catholics. OK, I'm biased here - my ancestors were poor Prods and got evicted during the famine.

Sorry for going off topic. The Jameson link was interesting, but I still think he went on about Marconi too much.