Who Do You Think You Are - Patrick Stewart 29th Aug

[Merry]

Thanks Wendy. I'll see if I can spot anything on ay docs they show after I've had my meal!

[Asa]

I didn't think I was going to find it interesting but as the programme progressed I found it more engaging and very moving. For some of us family history *is* about learning about our more recent family as well as going further back and I think it was good that this episode showed this different aspect to family history. It showed viewers that there can be a wealth of information available on our parents/ grandparents lives if we're lucky. I've read a few comments about it being more historical than genealogical but I think the former is very important in understanding the latter.

[Merry]

Alfred Stewart....(apologies to KiteRunner as much of this is probably in her synopsis)

Died 1980
Joined army 13th Feb 1925
Son Geoffrey b 28th Jan 1925
Did a seven year term in the army
Married Gladys 1933
He rejoined the army (the KOYLI) at the beginning of WW2 aged 34. Battalion was raised "right at the start of the war".
Promoted to Sergeant 1941
Promoted to Sergeant Major 1942
Joined the Paras 1943 aged 38
Promoted to (Acting) Regimental Sergeant Major, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment Jan 1945

So, it does seem that he should have been born about 1905 and the Dewsbury death in 1980 seems the only sensible one and is the same one I looked at before, dob 25th March 1905. I've now seen the posts stating Patrick believed his father to be from Hebburn whiich is three miles from where Alfred, son of James Irvine Stewart and Jane Cossom were living in 1911. Al very curious that this William Stewart, stage carpenter gets a mention in The Telegraph.

I quite enjoyed the program, though it didn't really fit with the usual WDYTYA? concept (was this the only episode not to include a blue graphic family tree, because they didn't need one?!). I felt it particularly when Patrick said his ambition and that of his father came from the same genepool - made me want to know about who had come before. I still think they should have given a couple of minutes to the general background of Alfred's family - I wondered if anything in his background influenced his not marrying Gladys when she became pregnant and yet not vanishing without trace altogether.

I thought Patrick's reactions to what he discovered were delightfully untheatrical and his brother Trevor was lovely. They and their father all looked very alike too.

[Olde Crone]

Asa

But I felt that we learned very little about the man himself, we just had his military career. There was no attempt to supply any personal information about him. For all we know he may have been a right nasty bit of work before he was ever involved in war or a military career - lots of men are.

OC

[kiterunner]

Originally Posted by Merry

I thought Patrick's reactions to what he discovered were delightfully untheatrical and his brother Trevor was lovely. They and their father all looked very alike too.

Yes, I was hoping all the way through that his brother would appear in the programme as I remember seeing an interesting interview with him once before. I can't think what programme that was on.

[Asa]

OC, he may well have been a nasty bit of work but that would have been a really disappointing ending for Patrick Stewart lol

[Rachel A]

Sounds like he was a nasty piece of work... but least he understands him more than he did before.

[AshkeJ]

I have to say that I extremely enjoyed Wednesday's episode! As a rule, I tend to enjoy the episodes that focus purely on one or two people far less than the more wide-ranging ones, and I don't have any particular interest in military history.

That being said ... I think this was an episode where the attitude and the presence of the 'star' makes all the difference. There was none of Greg Wallace's instant judging of character and none of Samantha Janus' (I was a huge Game On fan - can't get used to her being Womack!) heart-on-sleeve. He handlied what he found out with professionalism and dignity. At times he was truly struck by the events his father had survived, and you could see the emotion riding high under the surface.

As has been said previously in this thread, not a single one of our ancestors or families exist in a vaccuum. You have to understand the context in which they lived their lives otherwise those lives have no meaning and become simply names and dates and places. Granted, there are always people who seem to leave less of a trace than others - the ones who simply get on with life, are born, marry, have children baptised and buried and then are then buried themselves. It doesn't make them more or less worthy of respect or consideration than a flashy character. After all, history is only written by the survivors - and we're all products of that survival. It might be through keeping under the parapet rather than out-and-out biting struggles, but our ancestors didn't die of smallpox or cholera, didn't starve to death when their world turned upside down, made the journey, found a life-partner, all the rest of it. And all of that has to be reconciled and put into meaning.

Programmes like this week's show that there is always more to know of someone that is often simply presented to your face, and I think its a valuable lesson to carry with us whatever generation we're researching.

Sorry - that turned out to be a bit of a rant!!

[kiterunner]

I particularly loved the bits where someone would present Patrick Stewart with a document and ask him to read it out. I know it's a cliche, but I would happily listen to him reading out the telephone directory!

[AshkeJ]

Originally Posted by kiterunner

I particularly loved the bits where someone would present Patrick Stewart with a document and ask him to read it out. I know it's a cliche, but I would happily listen to him reading out the telephone directory!

Its almost like he's a classically trained actor ....