Jeremy Paxman weeps over tragic ancestor

[Roy Stockdill]

I expect most UK listers will have seen the stories in today's
national papers over Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in
tears over learning in the new series of Who Do You Think You Are
that his gt-gt-gt-grandmother died in poverty at only 36 of TB? For
overseas listers to whom the name of Jeremy Paxman may not be so
familiar, he is widely known here as our toughest and most abrasive
TV interviewer who has been known almost to reduce politicians to
tears. You can find the story on the web just by entering his name.

I'm afraid the story had me in stitches ! I wonder what Paxman would
do if he was a proper family historian who came across these tragic
tales of ancestors every day of the week?

I recently published in Practical Family History the ancestry of
Baroness Betty Boothroyd, the former Speaker of the House of Commons
and first woman ever to hold the post. I discovered her maternal
grandmother had an illegitimate child before marriage that died at
only a few months old, after marriage she then lost another child in
infancy and died herself at only 25 of TB. When I related this to
Betty Boothroyd and asked if she minded whether I mentioned it in
the article (especially the illegitimate child), she replied like a
true Yorkshirewoman: "Of course not - tell it like it is, warts and
all." She didn't break down and blub!

Frankly, I suspect a mocked-up scene for the cameras, so the BBC
could have a nice story to give the papers to launch the new series
with!

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[S***@aol.com]

In a message dated 08/12/2005 11:19:09 GMT Standard Time, ***@stockdill.com
writes:
I expect most UK listers will have seen the stories in today's
national papers over Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in
tears over learning in the new series of Who Do You Think You Are

_____________________________________________________________

http://www.connected.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/08/npax
08.xml

Regards Stan Mapstone
www.mapstone.org

[Jill.]

Post by Roy Stockdill
I expect most UK listers will have seen the stories in today's
national papers over Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in
tears over learning in the new series of Who Do You Think You Are
that his gt-gt-gt-grandmother died in poverty at only 36 of TB?

<snip>

Post by Roy Stockdill
Frankly, I suspect a mocked-up scene for the cameras, so the BBC
could have a nice story to give the papers to launch the new series
with!

While I completely agree with the sentiments of the last sentence I would
also say that just because one is able to understand that things happened
quite differently in centuries past and that working on ones family history
will dig up the good the bad and the ugly does not need to make one
insensitive to what our ancesters experienced.
I received a poem from a distant relative that my great grandfather wrote on
his daughters early and tragic death. Several years ago the GGF was only
someone who we thought had just been around in my GF's life and the great
aunt I knew nothing about.
I cried on reading that poem - it was so full of emotion of the man and so
descriptive of the girl and in tragic accident that resulted in her death. I
cried for them both - and for my grandfather on losing his beloved sister
However I am not crying over the fact that their mother was the illegitimate
child of an illegitimate child [and maybe one more generation the same]
except for the ancestors such a lineage has deprived me of!


--
regards Jill Bowis
Surnames search www.bowis.co.uk
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens, Ebethwaite
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom, Goodall,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter, Pittendriech
Sumner, Moss, Houghton, Hampson, Owen,
tentative one name : Bowis One place: Ardchattan, Argyll

[cecilia]

[...]Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in tears over learning
[...] that his gt-gt-gt-grandmother died in poverty at only 36 of TB? [..]

Thinks: a little older than the figures being given for current life
expectancy in some countries.

There are only two things that have really annoyed me as a result of
researches into my own family:

1) the gg-nephew of the man that tried to abduct my ggg-aunt said that
his family had testimony to behavour indicating she had led the man to
think his advances were not unwelcome. The courts accepted at the
time that she had done no such thing. (The man was jailed for 2 years
for the abduction attempt, and later, when he still tried to contact
her, bound over to keep away.)

2) the discovery that,, although his parents in Australia and aunt in
UK were never informed, the remains of a WW2 bomber pilot had been
officially buried, with his crew, by 1948 - the grave registration
slip says that a photo had not been sent to the NOK. His mother (who
lived to the 1970s) had long bouts of obsession that he was alive
somewhere, and searched Europe for him, being unable to achieve
closure from the information that he was missing, believed dead.

In both cases I was fascinated by my fury on behalf of the dead
regarding past events that no longer matter.

[Phil C.]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:08:13 GMT, ***@ic24.net (cecilia) wrote:

(snip)

Post by cecilia
In both cases I was fascinated by my fury on behalf of the dead
regarding past events that no longer matter.

I can't get personally involved with any of my ancestors - although
there's no shortage of poverty, early death, disability and
disappointment. For me they're just a source of anecdotes or mild
interest. I wonder if this is because I struggle to remember a really
kind word having been said about any of them that I've known of - I
tend to assume that the rest were much the same.

For example, I only remember my paternal grandmother telling _one_
tale of her family. She went to a large Sunday school convention where
all the girls were supposed to wear white dresses with blue sashes.
Her mother couldn't be bothered to sort out a blue sash and she was
utterly humiliated to be the only girl among thousands to be wearing a
white one.

[ymuir1706]

Post by Phil C.

Post by cecilia
In both cases I was fascinated by my fury on behalf of the dead
regarding past events that no longer matter.

I can't get personally involved with any of my ancestors - although
there's no shortage of poverty, early death, disability and
disappointment. For me they're just a source of anecdotes or mild
interest.

Admiration for some in how they rose above adversity is what I find.
An ancestor in Nova Scotia became a washerwoman for awhile when her husband
died.
In Australia, one of the transported ancestors joined a group who sent money
to England for the soldiers & sailors who were wounded in the war against
Napoleon.
Then more recently, my mother wanted to work, against her aunt's wishes; the
aunt was of the school who thought women should stay @ home. Training for a
nurse was too expensive, but with saving nickels & dimes (5 & 10 cents) &
the backing of a lawyer friend of her uncle, Mom became a legal secretary.

Simple things, not earth shattering, but worth respecting

Yvette, Canada.

[Charani]

Post by Phil C.
I can't get personally involved with any of my ancestors - although
there's no shortage of poverty, early death, disability and
disappointment. For me they're just a source of anecdotes or mild
interest. I wonder if this is because I struggle to remember a really
kind word having been said about any of them that I've known of - I
tend to assume that the rest were much the same.

I don't get involved with any of mine either. Some did well for
themselves, others didn't. There were deaths in childbirth; children
who's lives were cut short by illnesses that aren't, for the most
part, fatal today; illiteracy; illegitmacy; bigamy; distortions of
the truth. It was life. Occasionally I get an ancestor and wonder
why they behaved as they did, what the motivation was, but it's just
idle speculation at this distance in time.

My mother was very disparaging about her in laws, her mother and her
mother's family. My father rarely talked of his family.

[CWatters]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Frankly, I suspect a mocked-up scene for the cameras, so the BBC
could have a nice story to give the papers to launch the new series
with!

Perhaps, but who knows what stress he has been under recently.

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Roy Stockdill
She didn't break down and blub!

Betty Boothroyd knows precisely why she first entered politics. She already
knew that that sort of thing happened among her sort of people. The news
may not have been as much of a shock to her as it might be to some people.

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by Roy Stockdill
She didn't break down and blub!

Betty Boothroyd knows precisely why she first entered politics. She already
knew that that sort of thing happened among her sort of people. The news
may not have been as much of a shock to her as it might be to some people.>

I find it hard to believe that discovering a gt-gt-gt-grandmother
died in poverty at 36 would come as very much of a shock to someone
like Jeremy Paxman, either. Isn't he supposed to be a battle-hardened
newsman?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Jill.]

Post by Roy Stockdill
I find it hard to believe that discovering a gt-gt-gt-grandmother
died in poverty at 36 would come as very much of a shock to someone
like Jeremy Paxman, either. Isn't he supposed to be a battle-hardened
newsman?

It does depend a lot on the journey to the discovery
Maybe it just shows he is human beneath all of that bluster
:~)

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Isn't he supposed to be a battle-hardened
newsman?

So he knows what makes a good story! I'm surprised you don't recognise
that quality in a fellow journalist. Isn't it part of the trade to
present a story in a way that suits the target audience? Don't tell me
that NoW journalists never express emotions that they don't really feel
but which their constituency might relate to. I would cite as evidence
the recent outrage expressed by some journalists about snorting coke or
excessive drunkeness.

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by Roy Stockdill
Isn't he supposed to be a battle-hardened
newsman?

So he knows what makes a good story! I'm surprised you don't recognise
that quality in a fellow journalist. >

I think it's probably more likely the producer or someone said
off-camera "Give us a tear or two, Jeremy" and he played along.
Having taken part myself in several documentaries, I am well aware of
the kind of hoops that TV people try and make their subjects jump
through in order to achieve an effect.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Roy Stockdill
I think it's probably more likely the producer or someone said
off-camera "Give us a tear or two, Jeremy" and he played along.
Having taken part myself in several documentaries, I am well aware of
the kind of hoops that TV people try and make their subjects jump
through in order to achieve an effect.

I'm prepared to accept that he was genuinely moved - unlike some of us he
isn't a hard bitten family history researcher. Paxman is also experienced
enough not to simply do something he didn't want to do on the
instructions of some pimply youth of a floor manager. He would also be
well aware that he carries enough weight with the BBC so that if he
hadn't wanted his tears to appear in the programme, they wouldn't!

[M Black]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by Roy Stockdill
She didn't break down and blub!

Betty Boothroyd knows precisely why she first entered politics. She already
knew that that sort of thing happened among her sort of people. The news
may not have been as much of a shock to her as it might be to some people.>

I find it hard to believe that discovering a gt-gt-gt-grandmother
died in poverty at 36 would come as very much of a shock to someone
like Jeremy Paxman, either. Isn't he supposed to be a battle-hardened
newsman?

Yes, but it's always different when it's your own family.

I'm glad he was affected by it. Too many people nowadays aren't affected
by anything except what affects themselves personally - the "I'm alright
Jack" sort of attitude.

When my daughter was a couple of years old I used to take her to the
nearby cemetery to ride her trike in safety on their lovely tarred
paths. I remember standing in front of large old tombstones detailing
the deaths of child after child in a family and holding back the tears
myself.

I think it's a question of imagination, and seeing it in the mind's eye.

Maire Black

[Roy Stockdill]

Subject: Re: Jeremy Paxman weeps over tragic ancestor
Yes, but it's always different when it's your own family.
I'm glad he was affected by it. Too many people nowadays aren't affected
by anything except what affects themselves personally - the "I'm alright
Jack" sort of attitude.>

I can still remember my reaction when I first started out in family
history 30 years ago and virtually the first thing I discovered was
that I had an unknown half-sister, courtesy of a previous
relationship of my father's before he married my mother - would-be
trauma No. 1. The second discovery was that I was born illegitimate
because my parents weren't married until 18 months after I was born,
my father still being married to his first wife (NOT the mother of
my half-sister) - would-be trauma No. 2. I don't recall bursting into
tears at either discovery (though my mother did). My natural
instinct was that of the born family historian to know more!

Then when I found my paternal grandfather had died at only 45,
leaving my grandmother a widow with four young children to bring up,
because he'd contracted anthrax in a wool mill, I don't recall that
having a lot of effect, either. And when I found in a Bradford
newspaper an inquest report from the 1880's on a great-great-uncle
who killed himself with a cutthroat razor because the police came to
arrest him for passing forged money, I almost whooped with joy at
coming across such a dramatic incident for my family records!

Perhaps I'm just insensitive (some might say peculiar) but I take the
view that if people can't cope with their discoveries, then they
probably shouldn't look into their family history at all.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Jeff]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Perhaps I'm just insensitive (some might say peculiar) but
I take the
view that if people can't cope with their discoveries,
then they
probably shouldn't look into their family history at all.

Generally I agree.

But there is a difference between being unable to cope and
feelings of sadness.

I know finding a relative had been transported for merely
stealing a handkerchief moved me.

Even more so, finding my direct ancestor was clearly
responsible for the conviction and later hanging, drawing
and quartering of someone was 'upsetting'. This was
especially true when I read the reports of this
unfortunate's stoic behaviour at his execution at Tyburn in
front of a crowd of 80,000.

There was no question of not coping, but there were (and
still are) certainly some emotional feelings.

Paradoxically, I would much rather have those feelings based
on a knowledge of my ancestors' human failings and, in some
cases, sufferings than simply have a 'sterile' family tree
that told me nothing of their humanity.

[Sharon]

Here, here. Isn't that the whole point. If you can't
handle what you might find, then you might as well not
have even started, because you are sure to find some
little ditties in your past.

Sharon

Post by Roy Stockdill
Perhaps I'm just insensitive (some might say
peculiar) but I take the
view that if people can't cope with their
discoveries, then they
probably shouldn't look into their family history at
all.

__________________________________________________________
Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca

[Jill.]

Post by Sharon
Here, here. Isn't that the whole point. If you can't
handle what you might find, then you might as well not
have even started, because you are sure to find some
little ditties in your past.

Being able to feel emotion -- anger, sadness, pride, whatever is not the
same as not being able to cope

They are completely different - if the only way a person can comprehend
sadness if by condemning it as not coping it seems they might be considered
pretty devoid of emotion themselves

--
regards Jill Bowis
Surnames search www.bowis.co.uk
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens, Ebethwaite
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom, Goodall,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter, Pittendriech
Sumner, Moss, Houghton, Hampson, Owen,
tentative one name : Bowis One place: Ardchattan, Argyll

[Jill.]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Perhaps I'm just insensitive (some might say peculiar) but I take the
view that if people can't cope with their discoveries, then they
probably shouldn't look into their family history at all.

Feeling and expressing emotion is not "cannot cope"
It is recognising and appreciating situations one discovers
There are ancestors of mine I admire, respect, feel sorry for, none so far I
despise quite - although the attitude of a few have get me going.
I am sure there will be many other emotions that I will experience as I
travel the route. Not one of these requires me to see a counsellor or has
sent me into a tizzy of not coping
They are simply an ability to take bare facts and walk a little way in
these peoples shoes

--
regards Jill Bowis
Surnames search www.bowis.co.uk
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens, Ebethwaite
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom, Goodall,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter, Pittendriech
Sumner, Moss, Houghton, Hampson, Owen,
tentative one name : Bowis One place: Ardchattan, Argyll

[Jeff]

Post by Jill.
Feeling and expressing emotion is not "cannot cope"
It is recognising and appreciating situations one
discovers
There are ancestors of mine I admire, respect, feel sorry
for, none so far I
despise quite - although the attitude of a few have get me
going.
I am sure there will be many other emotions that I will
experience as I
travel the route. Not one of these requires me to see a
counsellor or has
sent me into a tizzy of not coping
They are simply an ability to take bare facts and walk a
little way in
these peoples shoes

Very well expressed.

I suppose the question of motivation comes into equation.

My motivation in starting Family History Research was to
learn more about my ancestors.

From a practical perspective that means I get more
satisfaction from learning more about an individual than I
do from simply adding another name to the tree.

But this attitude in no way affects my objectivity in
conducting research. I may feel subjective emotions about
the individuals but that is not inconsistent with applying
rigorous standards to the information I record.

[Julie Meikle]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Subject: Re: Jeremy Paxman weeps over tragic ancestor
Yes, but it's always different when it's your own family.
I'm glad he was affected by it. Too many people nowadays aren't affected
by anything except what affects themselves personally - the "I'm alright
Jack" sort of attitude.>

I can still remember my reaction when I first started out in family
history 30 years ago and virtually the first thing I discovered was
that I had an unknown half-sister, courtesy of a previous
relationship of my father's before he married my mother - would-be
trauma No. 1. The second discovery was that I was born illegitimate
because my parents weren't married until 18 months after I was born,
my father still being married to his first wife (NOT the mother of
my half-sister) - would-be trauma No. 2. I don't recall bursting into
tears at either discovery (though my mother did). My natural
instinct was that of the born family historian to know more!
Then when I found my paternal grandfather had died at only 45,
leaving my grandmother a widow with four young children to bring up,
because he'd contracted anthrax in a wool mill, I don't recall that
having a lot of effect, either. And when I found in a Bradford
newspaper an inquest report from the 1880's on a great-great-uncle
who killed himself with a cutthroat razor because the police came to
arrest him for passing forged money, I almost whooped with joy at
coming across such a dramatic incident for my family records!
Perhaps I'm just insensitive (some might say peculiar) but I take the
view that if people can't cope with their discoveries, then they
probably shouldn't look into their family history at all.
Roy Stockdill

Or perhaps they protest too much and are afraid to show any human feeling.

[Ali]

"Roy Stockdill" suggested

I take the view that if people can't cope with their discoveries, then
they probably shouldn't look into their family history at all.

But how would anyone know beforehand that they could not cope with their
discoveries?

That is, some people would know, and avoid family history, but others,
possibly including Mr Paxman, would be surprised by the strength of emotion
triggered by a discovery.

[Liz]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Perhaps I'm just insensitive (some might say peculiar) but I take the
view that if people can't cope with their discoveries, then they
probably shouldn't look into their family history at all.

Heaven forfend that anyone should call you insensitive, Roy!

But I don't think moist eyes over a dead lady qualifies Paxo for Wuss of
the Year award ....

I admit that some of the stuff on children's death certs brings on a
touch of the Little Nells .....

Walter aged 10 who cut his foot on some rusty metal and died horribly
from tetanus

16 year old Ada, a housemaid, fell escaping a house fire, was impaled by
the leg on iron railings and died of gangrene from the wound ....

And I was most moved when I found on the same page of the 1841 Census
the three little brothers aged 6,4,and 2 whose father had just died and
whose mother, after giving birth to a baby that died, had gone back to
work as a servant .... there is a happyish ending to this tale but
becoming awate of the stark realities of this family at that moment was
very touching indeed.

Family history is about connections .... from time to time the more
imaginative of us will feel an emotional pull towards one person or
another because they are part of us, literally, and we may recognise
aspects of ourselves in them. Its not the same as what we might feel for
a living family member but genuine, nevertheless.

I'll wait till I see the programme to decide about Paxo .... there may
be more to the tale than the newspaper gave us ..... but it seems a
shame that all this macho stuff (strong man breaks down) is still seen
as a selling point.

Liz (Greenwich UK)

[Peter]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Perhaps I'm just insensitive (some might say peculiar) but I take the
view that if people can't cope with their discoveries, then they
probably shouldn't look into their family history at all.

But how would someone know they weren't able to cope with the
discoveries until they made those discoveries? AIUI, Paxman had not
carried out any family hisory research prior to the making of the
programme.

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Peter
But how would someone know they weren't able to cope with the
discoveries until they made those discoveries? AIUI, Paxman had not
carried out any family hisory research prior to the making of the
programme.

Agreed but there's no evidence that he couldn't "cope". That was Roy's
tabloid interpretation of shedding a tear.

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by Peter
But how would someone know they weren't able to cope with the
discoveries until they made those discoveries? AIUI, Paxman had not
carried out any family hisory research prior to the making of the
programme.

Agreed but there's no evidence that he couldn't "cope". That was Roy's
tabloid interpretation of shedding a tear.>

I'm afraid my cynical mind remains of the opinion that it was a
reaction on his part for the benefit of the camera, either of his own
volition or at the producer's suggestion. The Beeb aren't daft - they
know what's going to get maximum publicity in the papers for their
programme!

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Jeff]

Post by Roy Stockdill

From: Peter Goodey

I'm afraid my cynical mind remains of the opinion that it
was a
reaction on his part for the benefit of the camera, either
of his own
volition or at the producer's suggestion. The Beeb aren't
daft - they
know what's going to get maximum publicity in the papers
for their
programme!

I can't disagree with Roy's interpretation of this
particular incident.

That being said, as I and others stated earlier, it is quite
possible to be a good objective Gemealogist and yet feel
some emotions about our ancestors' lives.

I certainly do let my imagination wander and not just on
tragedies. But, say, looking at a marriage, I find myself
wondering as to the kind of relationship, passionate,
loving, convenient, abusive etc etc

I have a common ancestor with my U.S. Cousins. He was a
slave owner. I know he branded at least one of his slaves.
His descendants from his second wife fought on Confederate
side in Civil War, one dying, apparently very bravely.

I think any reasonably imaginative individual is bound to
think about those lives, the motivations etc etc.

No, it didn't reduce me to a nervous wreck, no, it didn't
somehow destroy my objectivity in assessing evidence.

But, certainly it had an emotional effect. Frankly, I think
that is WHY I am attracted to Genealogy. Simply producing
charts with lots of names is an interesting intellectual
exercise but it pales alongside learning about and trying to
understand the texture of my ancestors' lives. At the very
least such understanding leads to empathy, antipathy,
sympathy etc etc

[Peter]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by Peter
But how would someone know they weren't able to cope with the
discoveries until they made those discoveries? AIUI, Paxman had not
carried out any family hisory research prior to the making of the
programme.

Agreed but there's no evidence that he couldn't "cope". That was Roy's
tabloid interpretation of shedding a tear.>

I'm afraid my cynical mind remains of the opinion that it was a
reaction on his part for the benefit of the camera, either of his own
volition or at the producer's suggestion. The Beeb aren't daft - they
know what's going to get maximum publicity in the papers for their
programme!

Have you considered that Paxman hasn't yet achieved your level of
cynicism or attained such a level of genealogical experience that he
is unable to hide his emotions as is doubtless one of the prime
qualifications of a tabloid journalist?

[Paul Vivash]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Stockdill" <***@stockdill.com>
To: <GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: Jeremy Paxman weeps over tragic ancestor

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by Roy Stockdill
She didn't break down and blub!

Betty Boothroyd knows precisely why she first entered politics. She already
knew that that sort of thing happened among her sort of people. The news
may not have been as much of a shock to her as it might be to some people.>

I find it hard to believe that discovering a gt-gt-gt-grandmother
died in poverty at 36 would come as very much of a shock to someone
like Jeremy Paxman, either. Isn't he supposed to be a battle-hardened
newsman?
Roy Stockdill

I agree, Roy. There must be thousands of other examples but, to take but
one, I now live in a small village in Wales which contained, in the 19th
Century a flourishing lead mine. The life expectancy of the miners was just
35 years.

Paul

[Charani]

Post by Roy Stockdill
I expect most UK listers will have seen the stories in today's
national papers over Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in
tears over learning in the new series of Who Do You Think You Are
that his gt-gt-gt-grandmother died in poverty at only 36 of TB? For
overseas listers to whom the name of Jeremy Paxman may not be so
familiar, he is widely known here as our toughest and most abrasive
TV interviewer who has been known almost to reduce politicians to
tears.

8>< snipped

Maybe he needs a counsellor.

[Vic Blake]

So what if he did cry! I think it's rather touching and human of him, even
if he is a hard-nosed sod most of the time in his public role. I think if
more men could be touched in this way by the sadness that life throws up the
world might just be a slightly better place. As an ex counsellor
(specialising in working with men) I doubt that he needs my services - he is
probably doing a good enough job on his own account.

Post by Charani

Post by Roy Stockdill
I expect most UK listers will have seen the stories in today's
national papers over Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in
tears over learning in the new series of Who Do You Think You Are
that his gt-gt-gt-grandmother died in poverty at only 36 of TB? For
overseas listers to whom the name of Jeremy Paxman may not be so
familiar, he is widely known here as our toughest and most abrasive
TV interviewer who has been known almost to reduce politicians to
tears.

8>< snipped
Maybe he needs a counsellor.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Vic Blake
So what if he did cry! I think it's rather touching and human of him, even
if he is a hard-nosed sod most of the time in his public role. I think if
more men could be touched in this way by the sadness that life throws up the
world might just be a slightly better place. As an ex counsellor
(specialising in working with men) I doubt that he needs my services - he is
probably doing a good enough job on his own account.>

Sadness produced by current events affecting people's lives
personally, perhaps. Sadness produced by something that happened to
an ancestor well over 100 years ago? I think not! Otherwise, every
family historian in the world would be weeping buckets of tears
virtually every day over discoveries of tragedies and traumas that
happened to their ancestors - which I doubt they are.



Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Vic Blake]

Roy, I think that's overstating your case somewhat. I really can't see what
the problem is here: so a hardman cried - it happens all the time. Who are
we to suggest that we may only do this under certain specified
circumstances. What moves one person may not move another: it's a purely
personal thing. Or is it just the fact that he's a man that shakes you up so
much.

Genealogists crying over the sadness of past - a rather touching idea I
think. I have certainly been very moved by what I have found out and I know
I'm not alone. So what exactly is the problem with this?

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Vic Blake
So what if he did cry! I think it's rather touching and human of him, even
if he is a hard-nosed sod most of the time in his public role. I think if
more men could be touched in this way by the sadness that life throws up the
world might just be a slightly better place. As an ex counsellor
(specialising in working with men) I doubt that he needs my services - he is
probably doing a good enough job on his own account.>

Sadness produced by current events affecting people's lives
personally, perhaps. Sadness produced by something that happened to
an ancestor well over 100 years ago? I think not! Otherwise, every
family historian in the world would be weeping buckets of tears
virtually every day over discoveries of tragedies and traumas that
happened to their ancestors - which I doubt they are.
Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:-
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
Oscar Wilde

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Vic Blake
Genealogists crying over the sadness of past - a rather touching idea I
think. I have certainly been very moved by what I have found out and I know
I'm not alone. So what exactly is the problem with this?>

For one thing, an excess of personal emotion may affect objectivity
in recording events, objectivity being what historians (and that
includes family historians) are supposed to employ in their
researches. If you allow an indulgence in emotion to get in the way
of basic research, then there is a danger of not seeing the wider
picture. Yes, one can be moved by a tragic discovery of some event in
the past, but personally I've never come across one in my own family
history that has moved me to tears or any similar emotion, and I've
recorded a few. History is history and there's not a lot you can do
about it.

What does worry me far more is the growing phenomenon of the
collective mass outpourings of phoney grief over some event like
the death of Princess Diana, where thousands find it necessary to go
into virtual hysterics over the demise of someone they never knew. We
are seeing this constantly now every time a child is murdered or dies
in some tragic way, with places like Soham becoming virtually on the
tourist trail so that ghouls can go and look at the places where the
events happened and lay flowers and weep crocodile tears - a reaction
which says far more about them than it does about the victims and
families of such tragedies. It's the same when some celebrity
succumbs. As a nation, and as individuals, we used to face traumas,
tragedy and death with quiet dignity. Call it the "British stiff
upper lip" if you like, but we coped better with grief 40 or 50 years
ago, in my opinion - and forgive me for saying this, before there
were such animals as counsellors!

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain

[Vic Blake]

You and I are just going to have to disagree on this one. I think it is
high time we (and I refer especially to men) allowed ourselves once in a
while to open up and show that we are human beings just like anyone else.
This certainly does not in any way deplete us as men, as human beings - or,
I should add, as researchers. I think it's a real shame that we still react
so damningly when this happens. We can all be moved, the question being
simply one of whether we allow ourselves to show it or not. So what is it
exactly - since you still don't really answer the question - that is so
terribly wrong with doing so.

Of course I don't mind your jibe at counsellors at all and I seem to
remember Prince Phillip saying exactly the same thing only a few years back.
But I do think it is terribly sad that we get so terribly defensive at the
thought of men showing their emotions (unless we are talking about anger and
rage). To do so does not reduce us to hysterical wimps, it doesn't
'feminise' us, we don't suddenly change our sexuality or become jibbering
wrecks - or lose the capacity for being 'objective' or decisive as and when
required. I'm not advocating hysterical outpourings of tears either but that
is certainly not what I am suggesting. The simple answer is that we didn't
cope with grief so well 40 or 50 years ago. It's a myth. What we did do was
to try to bottle it up and then express it in other, far more damaging ways.

Interestingly, the big attraction for objectivity among men is precisely
that it gives them an excuse NOT to have to consider their emotional lives -
and not a very good excuse at that since most epistemologists regard
objectivity as a highly problematic concept anyway. We need to be careful
about insisting that people (men especially) should shut down on their
emotions, every bit as much as we need to be careful about what we claim for
objectivity.

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Vic Blake
Genealogists crying over the sadness of past - a rather touching idea I
think. I have certainly been very moved by what I have found out and I know
I'm not alone. So what exactly is the problem with this?>

For one thing, an excess of personal emotion may affect objectivity
in recording events, objectivity being what historians (and that
includes family historians) are supposed to employ in their
researches. If you allow an indulgence in emotion to get in the way
of basic research, then there is a danger of not seeing the wider
picture. Yes, one can be moved by a tragic discovery of some event in
the past, but personally I've never come across one in my own family
history that has moved me to tears or any similar emotion, and I've
recorded a few. History is history and there's not a lot you can do
about it.
What does worry me far more is the growing phenomenon of the
collective mass outpourings of phoney grief over some event like
the death of Princess Diana, where thousands find it necessary to go
into virtual hysterics over the demise of someone they never knew. We
are seeing this constantly now every time a child is murdered or dies
in some tragic way, with places like Soham becoming virtually on the
tourist trail so that ghouls can go and look at the places where the
events happened and lay flowers and weep crocodile tears - a reaction
which says far more about them than it does about the victims and
families of such tragedies. It's the same when some celebrity
succumbs. As a nation, and as individuals, we used to face traumas,
tragedy and death with quiet dignity. Call it the "British stiff
upper lip" if you like, but we coped better with grief 40 or 50 years
ago, in my opinion - and forgive me for saying this, before there
were such animals as counsellors!
Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:-
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."
Mark Twain

[Graham P Davis]

Post by Vic Blake
Of course I don't mind your jibe at counsellors at all and I seem to
remember Prince Phillip saying exactly the same thing only a few years
back. But I do think it is terribly sad that we get so terribly defensive
at the thought of men showing their emotions (unless we are talking about
anger and rage). To do so does not reduce us to hysterical wimps, it
doesn't 'feminise' us, we don't suddenly change our sexuality or become
jibbering wrecks - or lose the capacity for being 'objective' or decisive
as and when required. I'm not advocating hysterical outpourings of tears
either but that is certainly not what I am suggesting. The simple answer
is that we didn't cope with grief so well 40 or 50 years ago. It's a myth.
What we did do was to try to bottle it up and then express it in other,
far more damaging ways.

I'm not sure we were so different fifty years ago. When I was at primary
school, the headmaster entered our class with tears running down his face.
He found it difficult to talk but managed to tell us of the death of King
George VI.

Graham

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Graham P Davis
I'm not sure we were so different fifty years ago. When I was at primary
school, the headmaster entered our class with tears running down his face.
He found it difficult to talk but managed to tell us of the death of King
George VI.>

And I have no doubt there was similar grief at the death of Queen
Victoria but the old newsreels of her funeral suggest that it was a
far more dignified and respectful occasion than the funeral of Diana.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain

[Hugh Watkins]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Graham P Davis
I'm not sure we were so different fifty years ago. When I was at primary
school, the headmaster entered our class with tears running down his face.
He found it difficult to talk but managed to tell us of the death of King
George VI.>

And I have no doubt there was similar grief at the death of Queen
Victoria but the old newsreels of her funeral suggest that it was a
far more dignified and respectful occasion than the funeral of Diana.
Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

and what will eb the reaction to the funeral of Margaret Thatcher?

She looks really unhealthy in her latest photos

Hugh W

[Halmyre]

Post by Hugh Watkins

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Graham P Davis
I'm not sure we were so different fifty years ago. When I was at primary
school, the headmaster entered our class with tears running down his face.
He found it difficult to talk but managed to tell us of the death of King
George VI.>

And I have no doubt there was similar grief at the death of Queen
Victoria but the old newsreels of her funeral suggest that it was a
far more dignified and respectful occasion than the funeral of Diana.
Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:-
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

and what will eb the reaction to the funeral of Margaret Thatcher?
She looks really unhealthy in her latest photos
Hugh W

Singing and dancing...

[singhals]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Graham P Davis
I'm not sure we were so different fifty years ago. When I was at primary
school, the headmaster entered our class with tears running down his face.
He found it difficult to talk but managed to tell us of the death of King
George VI.>

And I have no doubt there was similar grief at the death of Queen
Victoria but the old newsreels of her funeral suggest that it was a
far more dignified and respectful occasion than the funeral of Diana.

Well, yes, but then again, most of the mourners for Victoria had NEVER
known another ruler. Shell-shocked is probably more accurate than
grief-stricken. Diana was a different situation -- they had embraced
her persona and cause. Another difference is that no one in their right
MIND could claim Victoria was taken before her time, or that she had her
whole life before her ...

Cheryl

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by singhals
Well, yes, but then again, most of the mourners for Victoria had NEVER
known another ruler. Shell-shocked is probably more accurate than
grief-stricken. Diana was a different situation -- they had embraced
her persona and cause.<

What cause, what persona? The only cause Diana ever knew was how to
be a very expensive clothes horse, how to twist men, the media and
the world around her little finger and how to present herself to a
gullible public as the so-called Queen of Hearts.

One must concede that she was in some ways remarkable for being, all
at the same time, thick as a plank, a couple of sandwiches short of a
picnic and yet extraordinarily street-smart and manipulative when it
came to garnering all the headlines.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain

[Peter]

Post by Roy Stockdill
One must concede that she was in some ways remarkable for being, all
at the same time, thick as a plank, a couple of sandwiches short of a
picnic and yet extraordinarily street-smart and manipulative when it
came to garnering all the headlines.

Do tell, how many times did you meet her? What did she say in your
inteview(s) with her that gave you cause to believe she was "thick as
a plank, a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic"?

As a serious researcher can you point towards a primary souce for you
assertion?

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Peter
Do tell, how many times did you meet her?

I can't help feeling that if you had to physically meet someone before you
could actually know anything about them, the scope for genealogy might be
rather limited.

[Andrew Sellon]

Post by Peter Goodey
I can't help feeling that if you had to physically meet someone before you
could actually know anything about them, the scope for genealogy might be
rather limited.

The Sunday morning chuckle provider, thank you, Peter.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon

[Roy Stockdill]

Subject: Re: Jeremy Paxman weeps over tragic ancestor

Post by Roy Stockdill
One must concede that she was in some ways remarkable for being, all
at the same time, thick as a plank, a couple of sandwiches short of a
picnic and yet extraordinarily street-smart and manipulative when it
came to garnering all the headlines.

Do tell, how many times did you meet her? What did she say in your
inteview(s) with her that gave you cause to believe she was "thick as
a plank, a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic"?
As a serious researcher can you point towards a primary souce for you
assertion?>

Never met her personally but, then, I never met Adolf Hitler either,
and I think I could provide you with a fairly accurate character
reading for him!

I know lots of people who did meet her and while there were some who
fell under her spell, there were others who saw through her. She was
notorious amongst royal reporters and specialists for saying one
thing and then totally denying it later. She was known to phone
newsdesks, or get an aide to phone on her behalf, telling them she
would be appearing at a such-and-such a hospital to visit children,
and then fly into a tantrum and accuse photographers of intrusion
when they turned up. The Andrew Morton book, the infamous TV
interview in which she talked about being the "Queen of Hearts", were
deliberately staged ploys in her battle with Charles and Buckingham
Palace. I don't think you had to meet her personally to realise that
towards the end of her life she was becoming increasingly unstable.
Just reading of her erratic behaviour, both in public and in her
private life, was sufficient.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Andrew Sellon]

Post by Roy Stockdill
What cause, what persona? The only cause Diana ever knew was how to
be a very expensive clothes horse, how to twist men, the media and
the world around her little finger and how to present herself to a
gullible public as the so-called Queen of Hearts.
One must concede that she was in some ways remarkable for being, all
at the same time, thick as a plank, a couple of sandwiches short of a
picnic and yet extraordinarily street-smart and manipulative when it
came to garnering all the headlines.

Roy -

Although it can be said that I do not agree with you on many occasions,
(and the same can of course be said in reverse), on this subject I am in
full agreement with you, although I might phrase it somewhat
differently! (I'm not 100% sure about the sandwiches).

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Andrew Sellon

Post by Roy Stockdill
What cause, what persona? The only cause Diana ever knew was how to
be a very expensive clothes horse, how to twist men, the media and
the world around her little finger and how to present herself to a
gullible public as the so-called Queen of Hearts.
One must concede that she was in some ways remarkable for being, all
at the same time, thick as a plank, a couple of sandwiches short of a
picnic and yet extraordinarily street-smart and manipulative when it
came to garnering all the headlines.

Roy -
Although it can be said that I do not agree with you on many occasions,
(and the same can of course be said in reverse), on this subject I am in
full agreement with you, although I might phrase it somewhat
differently! (I'm not 100% sure about the sandwiches).

In her case I once heard it described as two diamonds short of a tiara...

And yes I had met her a couple of times. I'd describe her as hard and
calculating but definitely lacking something in the eyes.

[Graham P Davis]

Post by Roy Stockdill
What cause, what persona? The only cause Diana ever knew was how to
be a very expensive clothes horse, how to twist men, the media and
the world around her little finger and how to present herself to a
gullible public as the so-called Queen of Hearts.
One must concede that she was in some ways remarkable for being, all
at the same time, thick as a plank, a couple of sandwiches short of a
picnic and yet extraordinarily street-smart and manipulative when it
came to garnering all the headlines.

What cause? How about de-commissioning of land-mines? How about changing
public perception of AIDS sufferers? Yes, she was manipulative - but often
for good causes. The pictures of her with the AIDS patients garnered the
headlines but I would hope most people would see that as a good thing.

Not all the work she did was covered by the press. At a particular hospital
- it may have been the AIDS case, I don't remember - she got the press in
for initial photographs on the understanding that this would be the only
occasion the hospital would be bothered. She continued visiting the
hospital every week but, one day, she was late for her planned visit. When
she arrived, she apologised for her lateness but said that she'd had to do
some fancy driving to escape from the paparazzi. Not the last time she'd be
late due to trying to escape their attentions.

Graham

[cecilia]

[...] Not all the work she did was covered by the press. At a particular hospital
- it may have been the AIDS case, I don't remember - she got the press in
for initial photographs on the understanding that this would be the only
occasion the hospital would be bothered. She continued visiting the
hospital every week [...]

Shortly after her death I met (in the field of social housing) someone
involved with a charity (possibly in a different field - he didn't
say) she supported. He said she had done a lot of good, working in a
unpublicised way, and they would miss her help.

[Fenny]

Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W soc.genealogy.britain,
cecilia said ...

Post by cecilia
Shortly after her death I met (in the field of social housing) someone
involved with a charity (possibly in a different field - he didn't
say) she supported. He said she had done a lot of good, working in a
unpublicised way, and they would miss her help.

The same can be said of the Prince of Wales, but he isn't nearly as
photogenic or fashionable.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Graham P Davis

Post by Roy Stockdill
What cause, what persona? The only cause Diana ever knew was how to
be a very expensive clothes horse, how to twist men, the media and
the world around her little finger and how to present herself to a
gullible public as the so-called Queen of Hearts.
One must concede that she was in some ways remarkable for being, all
at the same time, thick as a plank, a couple of sandwiches short of a
picnic and yet extraordinarily street-smart and manipulative when it
came to garnering all the headlines.

What cause? How about de-commissioning of land-mines? How about changing
public perception of AIDS sufferers? Yes, she was manipulative - but often
for good causes. The pictures of her with the AIDS patients garnered the
headlines but I would hope most people would see that as a good thing.
Not all the work she did was covered by the press. At a particular hospital
- it may have been the AIDS case, I don't remember - she got the press in
for initial photographs on the understanding that this would be the only
occasion the hospital would be bothered. She continued visiting the
hospital every week but, one day, she was late for her planned visit. When
she arrived, she apologised for her lateness but said that she'd had to do
some fancy driving to escape from the paparazzi. Not the last time she'd be
late due to trying to escape their attentions.

Fine until you realise she was tipping the paparazzi off herself.

[Graham P Davis]

Roy Stockdill wrote:

.

Post by Roy Stockdill
What does worry me far more is the growing phenomenon of the
collective mass outpourings of phoney grief over some event like
the death of Princess Diana, where thousands find it necessary to go
into virtual hysterics over the demise of someone they never knew.

What do you know about other people's feelings? When I woke up that morning
and heard that she had been seriously injured I started weeping. I thought
to myself "what the hell! I didn't even like the woman!" but that didn't
change the sadness I felt. I'm not sure I understood my reaction but there
was nothing phoney about it.

Graham

[Halmyre]

Post by Graham P Davis
.

Post by Roy Stockdill
What does worry me far more is the growing phenomenon of the
collective mass outpourings of phoney grief over some event like
the death of Princess Diana, where thousands find it necessary to go
into virtual hysterics over the demise of someone they never knew.

What do you know about other people's feelings? When I woke up that morning
and heard that she had been seriously injured I started weeping. I thought
to myself "what the hell! I didn't even like the woman!" but that didn't
change the sadness I felt. I'm not sure I understood my reaction but there
was nothing phoney about it.
Graham

My first reaction to Diana's death was "Oh - that's convenient!", but I
kept that to myself at the time. However, the first person I told, some
time later, said "me too!".

[Sharon]

There was a similar outpouring when John Kennedy was
assassinated. The reaction from the public who never
knew him was very real.

Sharon

Post by Graham P Davis
What do you know about other people's feelings? When
I woke up that morning
and heard that she had been seriously injured I
started weeping. I thought
to myself "what the hell! I didn't even like the
woman!" but that didn't
change the sadness I felt. I'm not sure I understood
my reaction but there
was nothing phoney about it.
Graham

__________________________________________________________
Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca

[Steven Gibbs]

Post by Graham P Davis

Post by Roy Stockdill
What does worry me far more is the growing phenomenon of the
collective mass outpourings of phoney grief over some event like
the death of Princess Diana, where thousands find it necessary to go
into virtual hysterics over the demise of someone they never knew.

What do you know about other people's feelings? When I woke up that morning
and heard that she had been seriously injured I started weeping.

I was upset the day she died. They cancelled all the cricket!

Regards
Steven Gibbs
Bedford

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Graham P Davis
.

Post by Roy Stockdill
What does worry me far more is the growing phenomenon of the
collective mass outpourings of phoney grief over some event like
the death of Princess Diana, where thousands find it necessary to go
into virtual hysterics over the demise of someone they never knew.

What do you know about other people's feelings? When I woke up that morning
and heard that she had been seriously injured I started weeping. I thought
to myself "what the hell! I didn't even like the woman!" but that didn't
change the sadness I felt. I'm not sure I understood my reaction but there
was nothing phoney about it.>

I was referring to the hysteria that went on and on and on and to
some extent still goes on today, ad nauseum. The funeral with people
chucking flowers off motorway bridges, the fuss over her grave, the
appallingly vulgar shrine to her at Harrods, the Diana fountain or
whatever it's supposed to be called, etc, etc etc. All for someone
who at the end of the day will make no more than a tiny footnote in
the pages of history and who was, in truth, a couple of sandwiches
short of a picnic but who had been elevated to some kind of goddess
by the shallow cult of celebrity (for which the media with which I
was once involved must take the major part of the blame).

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Hugh Watkins]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Graham P Davis
.

Post by Roy Stockdill
What does worry me far more is the growing phenomenon of the
collective mass outpourings of phoney grief over some event like
the death of Princess Diana, where thousands find it necessary to go
into virtual hysterics over the demise of someone they never knew.

What do you know about other people's feelings? When I woke up that morning
and heard that she had been seriously injured I started weeping. I thought
to myself "what the hell! I didn't even like the woman!" but that didn't
change the sadness I felt. I'm not sure I understood my reaction but there
was nothing phoney about it.>

I was referring to the hysteria that went on and on and on and to
some extent still goes on today, ad nauseum. The funeral with people
chucking flowers off motorway bridges, the fuss over her grave, the
appallingly vulgar shrine to her at Harrods, the Diana fountain or
whatever it's supposed to be called, etc, etc etc. All for someone
who at the end of the day will make no more than a tiny footnote in
the pages of history

snip


just another mare in the royal studbook?

<ducks>

Hugh W

[Halmyre]

Post by Hugh Watkins

Post by Graham P Davis
.

Post by Roy Stockdill
What does worry me far more is the growing phenomenon of the
collective mass outpourings of phoney grief over some event like
the death of Princess Diana, where thousands find it necessary to go
into virtual hysterics over the demise of someone they never knew.

What do you know about other people's feelings? When I woke up that morning
and heard that she had been seriously injured I started weeping. I thought
to myself "what the hell! I didn't even like the woman!" but that didn't
change the sadness I felt. I'm not sure I understood my reaction but there
was nothing phoney about it.>

I was referring to the hysteria that went on and on and on and to some
extent still goes on today, ad nauseum. The funeral with people
chucking flowers off motorway bridges, the fuss over her grave, the
appallingly vulgar shrine to her at Harrods, the Diana fountain or
whatever it's supposed to be called, etc, etc etc. All for someone who
at the end of the day will make no more than a tiny footnote in the
pages of history

snip
just another mare in the royal studbook?
<ducks>
Hugh W

It does look very much like that. Perhaps she should have taken some
tips from the Queen Mother - she seems to have managed things a bit better.

[Peter]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Graham P Davis
.

Post by Roy Stockdill
What does worry me far more is the growing phenomenon of the
collective mass outpourings of phoney grief over some event like
the death of Princess Diana, where thousands find it necessary to go
into virtual hysterics over the demise of someone they never knew.

What do you know about other people's feelings? When I woke up that morning
and heard that she had been seriously injured I started weeping. I thought
to myself "what the hell! I didn't even like the woman!" but that didn't
change the sadness I felt. I'm not sure I understood my reaction but there
was nothing phoney about it.>

I was referring to the hysteria that went on and on and on and to
some extent still goes on today, ad nauseum. The funeral with people
chucking flowers off motorway bridges, the fuss over her grave, the
appallingly vulgar shrine to her at Harrods, the Diana fountain or
whatever it's supposed to be called, etc, etc etc. All for someone
who at the end of the day will make no more than a tiny footnote in
the pages of history and who was, in truth, a couple of sandwiches
short of a picnic but who had been elevated to some kind of goddess
by the shallow cult of celebrity (for which the media with which I
was once involved must take the major part of the blame).

As has recently been noted during the funeral of the famous drunk and
sometime footballer, George Best and the recent commemorations of the
25th anniversary of John Lennon's death

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Peter
As has recently been noted during the funeral of the famous drunk and
sometime footballer, George Best and the recent commemorations of the
25th anniversary of John Lennon's death>

Agreed. But is this not simply just another facet of the desperate
thirst people now seem to have for association with fame, however,
tenuous? We can't be George Best but we can weep over his death - a
man who not only grossly abused his own liver but somebody else's as
well. The case of John Lennon is perhaps a little more circumspect,
since he did not choose the manner of his death. However, I must
agree that his virtual elevation to the sainthood is unwarranted. One
wonders now whether, like James Dean, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis
Presley, Lennon's importance has been exaggerated out of all
proportion because he died prematurely.

Why do millions slump in front of their TV sets to watch Z-list
celebrities and nobodies asleep, as they do in Big Brother and that
other thing whatever it's called, "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of
Here". Why does the act of a former prime minister's middle-aged
daughter having a very public pee in the jungle in the middle of the
night suddenly become a worldwide talking point and focus of media
hysteria and, not only that, but threaten to make her a great deal
of money? Is this really how sad the human race has become?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Why does the act of a former prime minister's middle-aged
daughter having a very public pee in the jungle in the middle of the
night suddenly become a worldwide talking point and focus of media
hysteria and, not only that, but threaten to make her a great deal
of money? Is this really how sad the human race has become?

My theory - and I don't have any very much to back it up so it can be
easily shot down - is that there is sometimes a 'negative' effect at work.
Carol Thatcher seems interesting, even pleasant, because she's not her
mother. By the same token, Princess Di was mourned because she WASN't
really part of the Royal establishment, Lennon was not McCartney.

[NOSPAM]

Post by Peter Goodey
My theory - and I don't have any very much to back it up so it can be
easily shot down - is that there is sometimes a 'negative' effect at work.
Carol Thatcher seems interesting, even pleasant, because she's not her
mother. By the same token, Princess Di was mourned because she WASN't
really part of the Royal establishment, Lennon was not McCartney.

Though she had probably more English Royal blood in her than the Germans
and Greek in Buckingham Palace!

MB

[Charani]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Is this really how sad the human race has become?

I think the answer to that is (unfortunately) yes :((

[NOSPAM]

Post by Roy Stockdill
I was referring to the hysteria that went on and on and on and to
some extent still goes on today, ad nauseum. The funeral with people
chucking flowers off motorway bridges, the fuss over her grave, the
appallingly vulgar shrine to her at Harrods, the Diana fountain or
whatever it's supposed to be called, etc, etc etc. All for someone
who at the end of the day will make no more than a tiny footnote in
the pages of history and who was, in truth, a couple of sandwiches
short of a picnic but who had been elevated to some kind of goddess
by the shallow cult of celebrity (for which the media with which I
was once involved must take the major part of the blame).

I suspect that there will pictures of her around long after most people
have forgetten what Charlie and Camilla looked like.

MB

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by NOSPAM
I suspect that there will pictures of her around long after most people
have forgetten what Charlie and Camilla looked like. >

Well, indeed, but probably for the same reason that everybody's heard
of Nell Gwynne but few could tell you who Charles II's wife was!

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Hugh Watkins]

the problem is truth Vic

I was on tv playing a baritone saxophone once
and whe my pupils met me the next week they had stars in their eyes
"i saw you playing saxophone on tv" (sir)

not true I told them "I wss not playing"
the producer prerecorded a tape of the 70 saxophone orhcestra in a s
sound studio

and we mimed in the tv studio 20yeasr ago

today you can cut and paste anything

Hugh W

Post by Vic Blake
Roy, I think that's overstating your case somewhat. I really can't see what
the problem is here: so a hardman cried - it happens all the time. Who are
we to suggest that we may only do this under certain specified
circumstances. What moves one person may not move another: it's a purely
personal thing. Or is it just the fact that he's a man that shakes you up so
much.
Genealogists crying over the sadness of past - a rather touching idea I
think. I have certainly been very moved by what I have found out and I know
I'm not alone. So what exactly is the problem with this?

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Vic Blake
So what if he did cry! I think it's rather touching and human of him, even
if he is a hard-nosed sod most of the time in his public role. I think if
more men could be touched in this way by the sadness that life throws up the
world might just be a slightly better place. As an ex counsellor
(specialising in working with men) I doubt that he needs my services - he is
probably doing a good enough job on his own account.>

Sadness produced by current events affecting people's lives
personally, perhaps. Sadness produced by something that happened to
an ancestor well over 100 years ago? I think not! Otherwise, every
family historian in the world would be weeping buckets of tears
virtually every day over discoveries of tragedies and traumas that
happened to their ancestors - which I doubt they are.
Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:-
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
Oscar Wilde

[Charani]

Post by Vic Blake
So what if he did cry! I think it's rather touching and human of him, even
if he is a hard-nosed sod most of the time in his public role. I think if
more men could be touched in this way by the sadness that life throws up the
world might just be a slightly better place. As an ex counsellor
(specialising in working with men) I doubt that he needs my services - he is
probably doing a good enough job on his own account.

I agree it wouldn't be a bad thing if men "got in touch with their
feminine side" cried a bit more often instead of being "macho": but
this smacked of being artificial.

I'm afraid I'm with Roy on this one.

[Carol Yellowley]

I expect most UK listers will have seen the stories in today's national
papers over Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in tears over
learning in the new series of Who Do You Think You Are that his
gt-gt-gt-grandmother died in poverty at only 36 of TB?

Roy,
I suppose we could say that Paxo's had the stuffing knocked out of him -
boom boom!
Adelaide

[CWatters]

Post by Carol Yellowley
Roy,
I suppose we could say that Paxo's had the stuffing knocked out of him -
boom boom!

Oh very good. LOL.

[Patrick Wallace]

On the general principle that being mean to Paxo is rarely wasted
effort, I suspect a slight touch of 'Anything Moira Stuart can do, I
can do better'. But what happened to her ancestors would have made
anyone weep.

Post by Roy Stockdill
I expect most UK listers will have seen the stories in today's
national papers over Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in
tears over learning in the new series of Who Do You Think You Are

[Hugh Watkins]

Post by Roy Stockdill
I expect most UK listers will have seen the stories in today's
national papers over Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in
tears over learning in the new series of Who Do You Think You Are
that his gt-gt-gt-grandmother died in poverty at only 36 of TB? For
overseas listers to whom the name of Jeremy Paxman may not be so
familiar, he is widely known here as our toughest and most abrasive
TV interviewer who has been known almost to reduce politicians to
tears. You can find the story on the web just by entering his name.
I'm afraid the story had me in stitches ! I wonder what Paxman would
do if he was a proper family historian who came across these tragic
tales of ancestors every day of the week?
I recently published in Practical Family History the ancestry of
Baroness Betty Boothroyd, the former Speaker of the House of Commons
and first woman ever to hold the post. I discovered her maternal
grandmother had an illegitimate child before marriage that died at
only a few months old, after marriage she then lost another child in
infancy and died herself at only 25 of TB. When I related this to
Betty Boothroyd and asked if she minded whether I mentioned it in
the article (especially the illegitimate child), she replied like a
true Yorkshirewoman: "Of course not - tell it like it is, warts and
all." She didn't break down and blub!
Frankly, I suspect a mocked-up scene for the cameras, so the BBC
could have a nice story to give the papers to launch the new series
with!

with a name like Jeremy . .

he had to pretend to be tough tosurvive in the playground

when I read the infant deaths in PRs in the 1840iea and 1850ies
up to (my guess)505 by age 5 in poorer homes
I feel sad - but happy to be alive at my present age

Hugh W

[M***@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/9/2005 1:02:24 PM Mountain Standard Time,
***@stockdill.com writes:

And I have no doubt there was similar grief at the death of Queen
Victoria but the old newsreels of her funeral suggest that it was a
far more dignified and respectful occasion than the funeral of Diana.



Put it in perspective of the times, Roy. People in general were "far more
dignified and respectful" then than recently.

mary lou

[Peter Goodey]

Post by M***@aol.com
People in general were "far more
dignified and respectful" then than recently.

People were as "dignified and respectful" as the media of the time chose to
report it.

[Vic Blake]

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by M***@aol.com
People in general were "far more
dignified and respectful" then than recently.

People were as "dignified and respectful" as the media of the time chose to
report it.

Spot on. In actual fact the late 19C was incredibly riotous and disorderly,
with policemen murdered by mobs and the culprits let of with derisory fines.
Juries were even rewarded by a grateful public for treating such people
leniently. There was certainly a lot of deference, since most could not
afford to behave otherwise towards their 'superiors', but I doubt that there
was that much 'respect' as is being suggested. I don't particularly care to
'dignify' the poverty, misery and servitude of the bulk of the Victorian
working class either. The past was never the 'golden age' that romantics
like to believe.

[Don Aitken]

Post by Vic Blake

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by M***@aol.com
People in general were "far more
dignified and respectful" then than recently.

People were as "dignified and respectful" as the media of the time chose to
report it.

Spot on. In actual fact the late 19C was incredibly riotous and disorderly,
with policemen murdered by mobs and the culprits let of with derisory fines.
Juries were even rewarded by a grateful public for treating such people
leniently. There was certainly a lot of deference, since most could not
afford to behave otherwise towards their 'superiors', but I doubt that there
was that much 'respect' as is being suggested. I don't particularly care to
'dignify' the poverty, misery and servitude of the bulk of the Victorian
working class either. The past was never the 'golden age' that romantics
like to believe.

Their industrial disputes were something else. At Featherstone, in
1892, strikers destroyed an entire colliery complex, after which
troops were brought in and shot a number of them dead.

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Don Aitken
Their industrial disputes were something else. At Featherstone, in
1892, strikers destroyed an entire colliery complex, after which
troops were brought in and shot a number of them dead.>

Don't tell me Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have liked to do that in the
miners' strike if she thought she could have got away with it!

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain

[Peter]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Don Aitken
Their industrial disputes were something else. At Featherstone, in
1892, strikers destroyed an entire colliery complex, after which
troops were brought in and shot a number of them dead.>

Don't tell me Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have liked to do that in the
miners' strike if she thought she could have got away with it!

Oh dear, your populist person has just made an unmelcome appearance in
this NG. Without wishin to enter the grubby worlds of politics or
journalism, I suggest to you that the miners greatest enemy was their
leader who just couldn't wait for a class struggle to smash a
democratically elected government - he picked his fight at the wrong
time and with the wrong person - Lions led by a donkey.

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Peter

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Don Aitken
Their industrial disputes were something else. At Featherstone, in
1892, strikers destroyed an entire colliery complex, after which
troops were brought in and shot a number of them dead.>

Don't tell me Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have liked to do that in the
miners' strike if she thought she could have got away with it!

Oh dear, your populist person has just made an unmelcome appearance in
this NG. Without wishin to enter the grubby worlds of politics or
journalism, I suggest to you that the miners greatest enemy was their
leader who just couldn't wait for a class struggle to smash a
democratically elected government - he picked his fight at the wrong
time and with the wrong person - Lions led by a donkey.> >

In my view, Maggie and Arthur Scargill deserved each other as a pair
of lunatics perceived as being poles apart but actually brothers (or
sisters) under the skin.. Between them they destroyed a once-great
industry. However, Scargill only took part in the wrecking of the
mining industry. Thatcher wrecked just about every other
manufacturing industry in the UK as well and let her spivvy friends
in the City asset-strip them.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Peter]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Peter

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Don Aitken
Their industrial disputes were something else. At Featherstone, in
1892, strikers destroyed an entire colliery complex, after which
troops were brought in and shot a number of them dead.>

Don't tell me Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have liked to do that in the
miners' strike if she thought she could have got away with it!

Oh dear, your populist person has just made an unmelcome appearance in
this NG. Without wishin to enter the grubby worlds of politics or
journalism, I suggest to you that the miners greatest enemy was their
leader who just couldn't wait for a class struggle to smash a
democratically elected government - he picked his fight at the wrong
time and with the wrong person - Lions led by a donkey.> >

In my view, Maggie and Arthur Scargill deserved each other as a pair
of lunatics perceived as being poles apart but actually brothers (or
sisters) under the skin.. Between them they destroyed a once-great
industry. However, Scargill only took part in the wrecking of the
mining industry. Thatcher wrecked just about every other
manufacturing industry in the UK as well and let her spivvy friends
in the City asset-strip them.

I don't think a remark like " spivvy friends in the City" can be used
without mentioning the current governments track record ith spivvy
friends - Blunkett - resigned twice! And who was the provider of the
fund that caused Mandelsons resignation? (and where did those funds
come from?) - you don't have to dig very deep to find some
particularly grubby practices.

You're a journalist Roy - can I suggest to carry out a little research
into ALL thepolitical paries, not just trot out the hackneyed phrases
about someone who last headed the govenment over 10 years ago?

Lets look at the British motorcycle industry - Triumph relied on a
design first introduced by Edward Turner in 1936 right up to the time
of its demise - little or no investment by the management and their
problems were only magnified by the actions of the lunatic Viscount
Stansgate to set up a workers cooperative (which ailed disastrously)

British Leyland - again, little or no investment, all their mainstream
carsbased on designs in the order of 40+ years old. Management skills
non-existant - how on earth could you have 2 divisions of the same
company (Rover & Triumph) compting each other for a share of the sam
market?

British Airways - one of the few (only?) flag carriers in the orld
not to be threatened by bankruptcy - how different that may have
turned out had it not been privatised.

Telecommunications - I remember having to wait over a year to have a
phone installed in 1979 - how different things are today

My point is that it's a little simplistic to blame Thatcher or all the
countries woes - poor managment, littl or no investment in new
technolgies etc, some businesses ruined by trade union Spanish
practices.

Certainly the Tories made mistakes - all governments do (being made up
of human beings)do. Doubtless wew ill see how disasterous some of
Blairs policies will turn out to be in the long run. I look forward at
that time to reading your simplistic remarks re Blairs governance of
Britain.

[Graeme Wall]

In message <***@4ax.com>
Peter <***@nidum.plus.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Peter
My point is that it's a little simplistic to blame Thatcher or all the
countries woes - poor managment, littl or no investment in new
technolgies etc, some businesses ruined by trade union Spanish
practices.

That well known crime that no-one has ever defined but plenty have been
condemned for. Last used to justify the destruction of ITV that is now doing
/so/ well under it's enlightened management of second rate caterers and third
rate journalists.

[NOSPAM]

Post by Peter
I don't think a remark like " spivvy friends in the City" can be used
without mentioning the current governments track record ith spivvy
friends - Blunkett - resigned twice! And who was the provider of the
fund that caused Mandelsons resignation? (and where did those funds
come from?) - you don't have to dig very deep to find some
particularly grubby practices.

Is it the first time there have been two Ministers with past or present
criminal records?



Didn't Hain have one in his protesting days and a junior Home Office
Minister was given an official police caution which means he has a
current criminal record.

[Andrew Sellon]

<snip> In my view, Maggie and Arthur Scargill deserved each other as
a pairof lunatics perceived as being poles apart but actually brothers
(or sisters) under the skin.. <snip>

Roy -

Perhaps 'siblings' is the word?

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
In composing, as a general rule, run your pen through every other word
you have written; you have no idea what vigour it will give to your
style. Rev. Sydney Smith 1771-1854, Canon of St. Paul's.

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Don't tell me Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have liked to do that in the
miners' strike if she thought she could have got away with it!

I probably agree with what you say. But the important point is that she
wouldn't have got away with it. That may actually tell us more than
theorising about her state of mind.

Incidentally, I gather that her mind is practically non-existent these
days. I find it hard to sympathise. No I don't, I find it impossible.

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by Roy Stockdill
Don't tell me Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have liked to do that in the
miners' strike if she thought she could have got away with it!

I probably agree with what you say. But the important point is that she
wouldn't have got away with it. That may actually tell us more than
theorising about her state of mind.
Incidentally, I gather that her mind is practically non-existent these
days. I find it hard to sympathise. No I don't, I find it impossible.>

Likewise. However, the thought occurs that Harold Wilson actually
recognised the early warnings of Alzheimer's in his case, which is
why he surprised everyone by resigning when he did. Maggie, of
course, never recognised that she was barking and probably still
doesn't, any more than Ronald Reagan did.

How does the quotation go about those whom the gods wish to destroy
they first make mad?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Andrew Sellon]

Post by Roy Stockdill
Likewise. However, the thought occurs that Harold Wilson actually
recognised the early warnings of Alzheimer's in his case, which is
why he surprised everyone by resigning when he did. Maggie, of
course, never recognised that she was barking and probably still
doesn't, any more than Ronald Reagan did.

Roy -

One result of Reagan's obsession with 'The Evil Empire' was the
up-grading of the USA's armaments, which the USSR could not compete with
economically, leading to its disintegration.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon

[Jill.]

Post by Roy Stockdill
How does the quotation go about those whom the gods wish to destroy
they first make mad?

Having several strokes is not being mad nor is it anything to do with gods
wishing to destroy someone.
At over 80 she had done remarkably well up until then

--
regards Jill Bowis
[no MT supporter when she was in office by any stretch but your ignorance is
beyond any pail ]

Surnames search www.bowis.co.uk
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens, Ebethwaite
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom, Goodall,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter, Pittendriech
Sumner, Moss, Houghton, Hampson, Owen,
tentative one name : Bowis One place: Ardchattan, Argyll

[Andrew Sellon]

Post by Jill.
<snip>
[no MT supporter when she was in office by any stretch but your ignorance is
beyond any pail ]

Jill -

A delicious thought of Roy's miner strike siblings going up a hill hand
in hand to fetch a pail of water to throw over Diana. I suspect a
spell-check problem, for pale is the word, I believe, that you are
after. (As you might know, I make more spelling errors than anyone else
on this list, so please do not be offended).

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon

[NOSPAM]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Don Aitken
Their industrial disputes were something else. At Featherstone, in
1892, strikers destroyed an entire colliery complex, after which
troops were brought in and shot a number of them dead.>

Don't tell me Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have liked to do that in the
miners' strike if she thought she could have got away with it!
Roy Stockdill

I suspect some of the miners's leaders might have also wanted it to happen.

MB

[Peter Goodey]

Some good points.

Originally, I was just suggesting caution in interpreting events from a
limited range of reports. This may be difficult of course if there really
is nothing else available.

Those posts have reminded me that we need to be doubly cautious if the
events don't quite ring true in the context of the times. We also need to
take care with sources which have an interest in putting their own spin
on events. Extrapolation from events that we can be more sure of may also
be useful in helping to decide where the truth lies. I don't imagine
there's any sure-fire formula.

Some vague generalisation picked up from who-knows-where is almost
certainly no help!

[Phil C.]

Post by Vic Blake

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by M***@aol.com
People in general were "far more
dignified and respectful" then than recently.

People were as "dignified and respectful" as the media of the time chose to
report it.

Spot on. In actual fact the late 19C was incredibly riotous and disorderly,
with policemen murdered by mobs and the culprits let of with derisory fines.
Juries were even rewarded by a grateful public for treating such people
leniently. There was certainly a lot of deference, since most could not
afford to behave otherwise towards their 'superiors', but I doubt that there
was that much 'respect' as is being suggested. I don't particularly care to
'dignify' the poverty, misery and servitude of the bulk of the Victorian
working class either. The past was never the 'golden age' that romantics
like to believe.

The Victorian approach to mourning is also seen by many as gaudy and
OTT these days - jet mourning jewellery, over-elaborate memorials etc.
The death of Prince Albert and perpetual mourning of Victoria (in
particular) seem to have kicked off this trend and still colour our
view of the Vicrorians as dark, drab and severe. It even affected
fashions in household decor and ornaments. I doubt that would be seen
as dignified or tasteful these days.

ISTM that the Victorians are perpetually reinvented as heroes or
villains to illustrate something or other about our own age.

[S***@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/12/2005 20:55:40 GMT Standard Time,
don-***@freeuk.com writes:

Their industrial disputes were something else. At Featherstone, in
1892, strikers destroyed an entire colliery complex, after which
troops were brought in and shot a number of them dead.


_____________________________________________________________

Very interesting, but I can't find anything in 'The Times' about it.


Regards Stan Mapstone
www.mapstone.org

[S***@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/12/2005 21:56:10 GMT Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

Very interesting, but I can't find anything in 'The Times' about it.


______________________________________________
Ah! it was Thursday September 7th. 1893.


Regards Stan Mapstone
www.mapstone.org

[Nick]

Post by Roy Stockdill
I expect most UK listers will have seen the stories in today's
national papers over Jeremy Paxman supposedly breaking down in
tears over learning in the new series of Who Do You Think You Are
that his gt-gt-gt-grandmother died in poverty at only 36 of TB? For
overseas listers to whom the name of Jeremy Paxman may not be so
familiar, he is widely known here as our toughest and most abrasive
TV interviewer who has been known almost to reduce politicians to
tears. You can find the story on the web just by entering his name.
I'm afraid the story had me in stitches ! I wonder what Paxman would
do if he was a proper family historian who came across these tragic
tales of ancestors every day of the week?
I recently published in Practical Family History the ancestry of
Baroness Betty Boothroyd, the former Speaker of the House of Commons
and first woman ever to hold the post. I discovered her maternal
grandmother had an illegitimate child before marriage that died at
only a few months old, after marriage she then lost another child in
infancy and died herself at only 25 of TB. When I related this to
Betty Boothroyd and asked if she minded whether I mentioned it in
the article (especially the illegitimate child), she replied like a
true Yorkshirewoman: "Of course not - tell it like it is, warts and
all." She didn't break down and blub!
Frankly, I suspect a mocked-up scene for the cameras, so the BBC
could have a nice story to give the papers to launch the new series
with!

Does anyone know when she was born and died?

Nick

[Roy Stockdill]

Subject: Re: Jeremy Paxman weeps over tragic ancestor
Does anyone know when she was born and died?>

I haven't seen the precise details published but I believe it was a
great-great-great-grandmother who came from Glasgow. Since the
newspaper stories said that Paxman was filmed looking at her death
certificate, then she must have died after 1855 (when civil
registration came in in Scotland).

Paxman himself, of course, was born in Yorkshire (Leeds) in 1950,
which makes his shedding public tears on television even more
unforgiveable! <v.b.g.>

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

[Barbara J.Kolle]

Subject: Re: Jeremy Paxman weeps over tragic ancestor

So Roy, after these lonnnnng discussions on Jeremy, etc. are you able
to tell us which other "celebrities" are to appear on this new series
of the show? Have only this week managed to see tapes of Series 1,
which were taped by a friend because we don't have access to cable TV
and, in the main, enjoyed very much.
Regards.....Barbara



Barbara Kolle
E-mail ***@optusnet.com.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
http://member.melbpc.org.au/~dkolle

[NOSPAM]

Post by Barbara J.Kolle
So Roy, after these lonnnnng discussions on Jeremy, etc. are you able
to tell us which other "celebrities" are to appear on this new series
of the show? Have only this week managed to see tapes of Series 1,
which were taped by a friend because we don't have access to cable TV
and, in the main, enjoyed very much.
Regards.....Barbara

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/pdfs/tv/week2/bbctvwk2_un.pdf

[Barbara J.Kolle]

Post by NOSPAM

Post by Barbara J.Kolle
So Roy, after these lonnnnng discussions on Jeremy, etc. are you able
to tell us which other "celebrities" are to appear on this new series

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/pdfs/tv/week2/bbctvwk2_un.pdf

Thank you, No Spam .... so now I know. Only trouble is though some
names are familiar, can you give me a little "inside" on Gurinder
Chadha and somehow I feel I shouldn't ask - Jane Horrocks. No matter,
I shall be looking forward to this next series.

Thanx again....Barbara

Barbara Kolle
E-mail ***@optusnet.com.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
http://member.melbpc.org.au/~dkolle

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Barbara J.Kolle
Only trouble is though some
names are familiar, can you give me a little "inside" on Gurinder
Chadha and somehow I feel I shouldn't ask - Jane Horrocks.

I think Google would be your best bet. If in doubt you could try these:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0149446/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001363/

[Nick]

Post by Barbara J.Kolle

Post by NOSPAM

Post by Barbara J.Kolle
So Roy, after these lonnnnng discussions on Jeremy, etc. are you able
to tell us which other "celebrities" are to appear on this new series

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/pdfs/tv/week2/bbctvwk2_un.pdf

Thank you, No Spam .... so now I know. Only trouble is though some
names are familiar, can you give me a little "inside" on Gurinder
Chadha and somehow I feel I shouldn't ask - Jane Horrocks. No matter,
I shall be looking forward to this next series.
Thanx again....Barbara

Jane Horrocks is an actress who was in "Little Voice" with Michael Caine.
She is particularly well-known, I think, for her impressions of "divas"
which corresponded to her role in the film.

I gather that Gurinder Chadha is the director of the film "Bend it Like
Beckham".

It would seem that they chose people who one might say are minor celebrities
and therefore about which you don't know too much already - that is why you
haven't probably heard of these people.

I found the most extraordinary episode in the first series was where Bill
Oddie met another Bill Oddie in Lancashire. People had often commented to
Bill Oddie 2 that he looked like the famous one (probably not
internationally) without knowing that they were distantly related.

They also made some parallel programmes about "ordinary" people in the
original series - so, I don't really think it is necessary to know who the
people are to still find the programmes fascinating.

Nick