Season 7: All Episodes Talk

[andromeda331]

This.   I always get annoyed when people say, "people didn't get divorced before..." and I am always, always, always thinking read a couple of census records.    There is nothing new under the sun, really.    Divorce wasn't as common especially among the upper class set.  But both sets of my mothers grandparents were divorced by 1920 and an aunt from both sides of her family by 1940.   Divorce happened.  Abandonment happened.

 

 

Me too. This is really all over my family tree. My great-grandparents who married in the 30s were both divorced

he adopted her kids. I have a great-great-grandmother who divorced her husband in the 1880s picked took their

kid and moved on she later remarried to my great-great-grandfather.

 

This may sound weird but it surprises me when they research the parent who abandoned them. I know its

ancestry and this probably the only thing they can find but I'm always surprised that like in this case

he wanted to know about his father's side. I zero interested researching my great-grandmother's first husband

even though technically that's my bloodline. My family has zero interest in researching him or his family.

Her second husband who adopted her kids that's the one we all love and claim as our family. Because he is

and he was such an awesome person. And so was his family. Their the ones who are our family. Their

the ones on our tree.

[bybrandy]

Me too. This is really all over my family tree. My great-grandparents who married in the 30s were both divorced

he adopted her kids. I have a great-great-grandmother who divorced her husband in the 1880s picked took their

kid and moved on she later remarried to my great-great-grandfather.

 

This may sound weird but it surprises me when they research the parent who abandoned them. I know its

ancestry and this probably the only thing they can find but I'm always surprised that like in this case

he wanted to know about his father's side. I zero interested researching my great-grandmother's first husband

even though technically that's my bloodline. My family has zero interest in researching him or his family.

Her second husband who adopted her kids that's the one we all love and claim as our family. Because he is

and he was such an awesome person. And so was his family. Their the ones who are our family. Their

the ones on our tree.

My answer to this feels very off topic/personal so if you're interested let me know and I'll take the longer answer to the small talk thread.   The shorter answer, however, is that while I am 1000% supportive of tracing the family of your heart that the craptastic actions of one ancestor doesn't necessarily reflect upon his parents, grandparents, great-grandparents before him and that for better or worse is as much a part of your history as the support received from an awesome step-parent or a more than enough single parent.   

 

 

If Brian Cranston says, "my dad left done with him" and never looks into his family tree then he misses out on knowing that he came from generations of actors and that is kind of cool given his profession.  And by knowing the history of abandonment in his family it is even more powerful when he says, "it ends with me."  

Edited August 28, 2015 by bybrandy

[chitowngirl]

What a great episode. It's so neat to be able to go back to the 1600's and have so much written history available (get out the white gloves!). And such a beautiful village in France. I also love that Tom Bergeron drives a convertible vintage Beetle.

[Dianaofthehunt]

So fascinating, the Bergeron episode! I''ll be doing some research on fis du Roi. So gratifying that the women had the upper hand in their choice of husbands!

 

Programs like this are what the "Learning Channel" is supposed to be about; education and excitement about further study; not an endless parade of freaks.

[atir]

Wonder if it's filles de (du) roi. That was a wonderful episode. I am not familiar with Tom, but I so enjoyed learning about La Rochelle plus how disturbing that whole starving thing was. Urg. Stupid Louis XIII.

[zxy556575]

That danged village held out a lot longer than I would have, religious persecution or not! My white flag would have been waving long before the leather-eating and 75% of the citizens dying of starvation. You have to wonder if their shared ordeal is what drew Marguerite and her first husband together.

 

I wonder what happened to Laurent, Marguerite's son with her first husband. He wasn't listed in the will when Marguerite died -- maybe he was considered an adult by then? I also wanted Tom to point out which one of those 7 children was his ancestor.

 

Tom getting a little choked seemed very genuine, first because it was a moving story, but also because he didn't try to link Marguerite's personality to his own in some way. That stuff continues to bug me with some of the celebrities.

[abbottrabbit]

 

I wonder what happened to Laurent, Marguerite's son with her first husband. He wasn't listed in the will when Marguerite died -- maybe he was considered an adult by then? I also wanted Tom to point out which one of those 7 children was his ancestor.

 

 

Laurent Jr. was 16 months when Marguerite's second marriage (sorry, can't remember the husband's name. Jacques? Jean?) contract was drawn up, and in that agreement the husband promised to care for him until he was 15. The children from that marriage ranged in age from 14 (or 16?) to 4 in the estate inventory, so Laurent Jr. would already have been past the age of the second husband's guardianship. 

 

I'm so glad they ended this season with this episode -- such a great note to conclude on. And the filles du roi thing was fascinating. I know that one of my earliest female ancestors in the U.S. came here as an indentured servant for essentially the same purpose, but the Canadian set-up sounds... how to put this nicely?  Way more consensual.

[Arynm]

That danged village held out a lot longer than I would have, religious persecution or not! My white flag would have been waving long before the leather-eating and 75% of the citizens dying of starvation. You have to wonder if their shared ordeal is what drew Marguerite and her first husband together.

 

I wonder what happened to Laurent, Marguerite's son with her first husband. He wasn't listed in the will when Marguerite died -- maybe he was considered an adult by then? I also wanted Tom to point out which one of those 7 children was his ancestor.

 

 

I just finished the episode and looked to see which child was Toms ancestor. It was Suzanne the second born  aged 14 at the time of Margurites death. There was a very brief shot on the family tree at the beginning of the episode.

[Jadzia]

My only complaint with the episode was because they went so far back, it was hard to tie in Tom's ancestral line with the family they were discussing. I thought at one point he was wondering if she lived and I kept thinking, "well she would have had to live in order to give birth to your ancestor so you would be here." And then when they listed the names of the children in the will there was no recognition or connection to which one was Tom's ancestor. 

 

Still, although the context was confusing, I thought it was a good episode mainly for Tom's attitude - he seemed genuinely interested and intuitive about what was going on. I also loved that I learned several things about history that I had never about before, such as the siege in France and the files du roi. Very Interesting!

[Linderhill]

I'd learned about the filles de (du) roi some years ago when I toured Quebec on a bus trip so this brought up some great memories for me.  The trip included visits to Notre Dame in Quebec City and in Montreal so this season's episodes were interesting to me to be able to see those places again in a different context.  From what I remember from the tour guide, for each child from the filles de (du) roi  marriages, they were granted more land to farm (I could be mistaken) or at least more money form the Church so it would make sense that they would have as many children as they were able.

 

The filles de (du) roi  also sound similar to the fille à la cassette of New Orleans.  Young women recruited from orphanages, etc. to be brides for the colonists in Louisiana.

[Blergh]

I'm a bit amazed they let someone who'd been persecuted for being a Protestant become a 'file du roi' [and a widow with  child NOT an unmarried girl,to boot] but lucky for her, Marguerite , was able make a new life in the New World for herself and her young son. No doubt life on the wild Quebec frontier  with far harsher winters than France had, and starting a farm and bearing so many children was quite challenging but I'd like to think she found some peace in doing so especially after what she'd barely survived back in France.

[iMonrey]

 

I just finished the episode and looked to see which child was Toms ancestor. It was Suzanne the second born  aged 14 at the time of Margurites death.

 

Is she the one who married a Bergeron?

 

This is exactly the kind of episode I dislike. They jumped back in time and found an ancestor just for the sake of telling a good story. It felt more like a history lesson than Tom researching his family. I completely lost track of how exactly Marguerite was related to Tom and they never connected the dots, as in - her child X married X who married so-and-so Bergeron, etc. I get that they saw an opportunity here to tell a good story but it seemed too disconnected from Tom himself, especially with their failure in connecting those dots. I just felt like I was watching a history show.

 

I much preferred the episodes about Ginnifer Goodwin, Bryan Cranston and Alfre Woodard. None of those stories went back much further than their great grandparents but they felt far more personal in involved, and had a greater effect on the descendants. At the end of the day, Marguerite's story doesn't really have any effect on Tom himself, except that . . . he's here. 

Edited August 31, 2015 by iMonrey

[andromeda331]

Didn't he refer to her as his 9x or 10x great-grandmother? I thought he did. I enjoyed the episode. That town had

guts. And so did Marguerite. Its really amazing what some people went through.  

[attica]

You have to wonder if their shared ordeal is what drew Marguerite and her first husband together.

 

I'm a cynic, so I'm more likely to conclude with a local population decrease of 75% in such a short period of time, they were just all that was left. You make do with the only choice available. Romance maybe not so much.

[kassygreene]

IIRC they were married in 1623, and that siege didn't start until 1627.

[abbottrabbit]

That was Marguerite's parents that were married before the siege -- the master stone mason and his wife? Marguerite wasn't even born until after the siege, in 1636. 

 

Not to say that she and Laurent may not have shared a rough childhood --  growing up in a town where the population was decimated and all -- but they weren't the ones eating cats and leather. 

Edited September 1, 2015 by abbottrabbit

[Pepper Mostly]

The minute I saw La Rochelle I knew it was Huguenot drama. (from reading The Three Musketeers, maybe?) I loved Tom's story and I loved how it connected him to his ancestor. I thought of Marguerite as a tough, practical woman who was probably pragmatic enough to convert to save her life and protect her opportunities for her future. Or maybe for love of her shoemaker. When opportunity knocked and she had the chance to become a fille de roi, she grabbed it with both hands.  In any case, I kept thinking "good for her!"  I'm a huge fan of Tom Bergeron anyway, and I really, really loved his episode.

[Neurochick]

I loved this episode because I adore Tom Bergeron.  Back in 1994, he used to host a show on the FX network called Breakfast Time.  It was a crazy, very New York morning show that was made in NYC, even though we didn't have FX in NYC for years.  I first saw the show when I went to visit a friend in Seattle.  

[ikmccall]

I loved this episode because I adore Tom Bergeron.  Back in 1994, he used to host a show on the FX network called Breakfast Time.  It was a crazy, very New York morning show that was made in NYC, even though we didn't have FX in NYC for years.  I first saw the show when I went to visit a friend in Seattle.  

 

I remember this show.  Was there a puppet?

[Neurochick]

I remember this show.  Was there a puppet?

 

I think there was.  Gordon Elliot was on that show too.

[vera charles]

The Tom Bergeron episodes was a very interesting history lesson, even though it was a bit hard to make the connection between him and his ancestor. We had to rewind and look at the family tree that was shown early in the episode, in order to pinpoint Suzanne as the child who was his ancestor. I love it, though, when the celebrity realizes that their ancestor was actually a part of history. Vanessa Williams in the Tennessee statehouse, Chris O'Donnell at the Smithsonian, Kelsey Grammer on the Oregon Trail, Tom Bergeron at the memorial park in Canada. This show does a great job of making history personal.

Edited September 6, 2015 by vera charles

[Kromm]

Bergeron was a weird episode.  He's such a charming funny guy, but since he couldn't really use any of that here, the episode felt kind of flat. I do think he was genuinely touched by many of the things he heard (and we even got some of the inevitable projection--although that was harder with the relative being investigated being a woman), but that announcery voice of his talking about his ummm... feelings.. is definitely kinda weird.

[Admiranda]

Late to the party, but did anyone else see the words (spoilered for very disturbing war atrocities)

"mother's wombs" and "infants"

in that eye-witness book of the Siege? It was after the part about the women and girls being raped. It was mostly obscured by tight camera shots, but was just visible.

 

This iteration of the show is justly criticized for leaving notable things out and/or not bringing attention to notable things visible on screen, but in this case I don't blame TLC! No wonder Mr. Bergeron was upset while he read that.

 

In lighter news, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive article on the Filles du Roi. Other notable descendants of various "King's Daughters" include Madonna, Hillary Clinton, Angelina Jolie, and Roman Catholic saint André Bessette.

[BW Manilowe]

I think there was. Gordon Elliot was on that show too.

And Tom's Co-Host on FX's Breakfast Time was a woman named Laurie Hibberd, who eventually went on to marry (& have 2 daughters with) Michael Gelman (aka "Gelman") the Executive Producer of the daytime talk show that started out as Live! with Regis and Kathie Lee & is currently known as Live! with Kelly and Michael.

Atir: As we said, Tom's national TV career really started on the old FX daytime show Breakfast Time (he had previously been doing local broadcasting in the Northeast).

He's probably best-known, though, as the host of both Hollywood Squares (the version--I think the most recent 1 in syndication--with Whoopi Goldberg in the center square) & ABC's Dancing with the Stars. He's won Emmys for hosting both shows. For the last few years, except for this year (when he was filming his episode of Who Do You Think You Are?), he's also been the host of A Capitol Fourth, the annual PBS broadcast of the Fourth of July concert held on the lawn of the US Capitol building in Washington, DC.

I think those are the works he's best-known for. I think he also does other, random, TV hosting gigs periodically, & he's also been a celebrity participant on the syndicated game show Celebrity Name Game (created by actress Courteney Cox & her ex-husband, actor David Arquette, hosted by Craig Ferguson, former host of CBS' Late Late Show).

Edited October 7, 2015 by BW Manilowe