Season 9: All Episode Talk

[iMonrey]

Courtney Cox on March 5th. This is the second time someone has traced their roots back to Edward I of England (the previous one being Valerie Bertinelli - so apparently Cox and Bertinelli are distantly related). I once again felt a bit of a "cheat" was used here because they seemed to have jumped several generations to get from Cox's grandparents to her 8-times great grandfather. Would it kill them to show the whole tree?

I'm already pretty familiar with the history of the English Monarchy so I knew about Edward II and Roger Mortimer. Was grateful for the location footage though.

[BusyOctober]

I noticed they stop unrolling the family tree scroll when they got to William the Conqueror (her 25xGG)...but they could have kept going back!  William was a descendant of the first Norse settlers in France, and for any of you Vikings fans, that means Rollo is Courtney Cox's 29 or 30 x GG!

[my3sons]

I haven't seen all the episodes but it seems as though the celebrity either has a notable ancestor (Courtney Cox, Valerie Bertinelli, Cindy Crawford) or an interesting story (the one that comes to mind is Scott Foley's ancestor being a 'bodyguard' for George Washington).  Do you think the producers trace the ancestry before approaching the celebrity to do the show?

[iMonrey]

I suppose it's possible they reach out to certain celebs (or vice versa), do a cursory search, and say yea or nay based on whether they find anything interesting. But I think in most cases they are able to find something to make a story out of. How they get there can sometimes be a bit of a stretch, IMO. The most compelling stories - to me - have been the ones that didn't go back very far, like Ginnifer Goodwin's grandparents, or Christina Applegates. When they have to search back through someone's mother's father's father's mother's mother's father's mother's mother's father's mother, I start losing interest because I've lost the connection to the present-day celebrity.

[ShelleySue]

For the first time distant ancestors matched distant ancestors on my family tree (my husband's side).  He is related (20-some generations ago) to the  Berkeleys.  I hadn't gone back as far as William the Conquerer though, so last night was very exciting for us.  Does anyone know if Courtney Cox's family tree is available online?

Did anyone notice that the "coming up next" before the commercials and  the recaps after the commercials are gone?  I hated those.  Unfortunately however, instead of adding to the show itself the time is being used to add commercials.

Edited March 6, 2017 by ShelleySue
typs

[Peanutbuttercup]

2 hours ago, my3sons said:

I haven't seen all the episodes but it seems as though the celebrity either has a notable ancestor (Courtney Cox, Valerie Bertinelli, Cindy Crawford) or an interesting story (the one that comes to mind is Scott Foley's ancestor being a 'bodyguard' for George Washington).  Do you think the producers trace the ancestry before approaching the celebrity to do the show?

I remember there was a celebrity a few years back who said he was supposed to be on the show, but after the producers had done a certain amount of work tracing his family, they told him they weren't going forward because there wasn't enough interesting stuff. I think he also said that this is true for about half of the people who are originally approached to be on the show. I don't remember who it was though!

[weightyghost]

4 hours ago, my3sons said:

 Do you think the producers trace the ancestry before approaching the celebrity to do the show?

Lisa Kudrow was on Conan last week and he said that he was approached and provided some of his background to the show because he was interested, and as far as he knew he descended from some farmers in Ireland. He joked that he never heard from them again. Lisa was like "well turns out you are descended from a bunch of farmers in Ireland." So I'm sure it's both - celebs who are curious and those who are approached but if there's nothing interesting, they're not going to show it. (also fun note, Conan stated the only thing his test showed was that he is 99.8% Irish)

[my3sons]

1 hour ago, Peanutbuttercup said:

I remember there was a celebrity a few years back who said he was supposed to be on the show, but after the producers had done a certain amount of work tracing his family, they told him they weren't going forward because there wasn't enough interesting stuff. I think he also said that this is true for about half of the people who are originally approached to be on the show. I don't remember who it was though!

Thanks!  That's what I figured.  I can't imagine there being any royal ancestors or interesting relatives in my family tree.  I would love to have someone research my family tree but that would probably cost lots of $$$$.  I'm never going to be famous so that rules out TLC doing the work for me!

[palmaire]

While I've never been exactly giddy about this show, I've always found it interesting enough. This week I listened to Cox prattle on ("Gee, I don't know anything about anything! I hope it's royalty!") for about ten minutes before deleting the episode. I have nothing against her in particular, but basically I just didn't care what they found or where she had to travel.

Next week's episode blurb calls out a "nefarious" relative, which probably means more feigned over the top horror and shame for PR reasons.

Maybe I've had my fill of this.

[riverblue22]

1 hour ago, my3sons said:

Thanks!  That's what I figured.  I can't imagine there being any royal ancestors or interesting relatives in my family tree.  I would love to have someone research my family tree but that would probably cost lots of $$$$.  I'm never going to be famous so that rules out TLC doing the work for me!

It's really not hard to do yourself on Ancestry.com.  I knew nothing when I started but I've found bunches of interesting stories in my family since then.

[attica]

We will remember that E2 (the murdered king) is the guy married to Sophie Marceau in Braveheart. Many historians think he was gay (Gibson's movie portrayed him thus), which would be a partial reason for the particular kind of torture that one chronicle described, if a) he actually was gay; 2) the chronicle was true.

Courtney is also related to presidents FDR and GWB via the deSpencer line.

I loved the trip to the Castle Berkeley. It would have been funny if the historian had opened the gate with a hearty "Welcome Home!" but I could see why one wouldn't want to give any ideas to shirttail relations. :)

Joseph Shumway is back! He's one of my favorites!

[Lizzing]

I did like the scenic shots but I kinda wanted someone to chuck a copy of Marlowe's Edward II at Cox and tell her to read it so she'd stop exclaiming how dramatic and soapy the story was. LOL!  I know, I shouldn't expect sitcom actresses to be versed in historical theater.  It did seem odd that they went back to the ~20X grandfather story of Edward II/III again though.  Surely someone in closer proximity to the current generations had something interesting happen, even if it were a couple hundred years ago.

[maraleia]

1 hour ago, attica said:

We will remember that E2 (the murdered king) is the guy married to Sophie Marceau in Braveheart. Many historians think he was gay (Gibson's movie portrayed him thus), which would be a partial reason for the particular kind of torture that one chronicle described, if a) he actually was gay; 2) the chronicle was true.

Courtney is also related to presidents FDR and GWB via the deSpencer line.

I loved the trip to the Castle Berkeley. It would have been funny if the historian had opened the gate with a hearty "Welcome Home!" but I could see why one wouldn't want to give any ideas to shirttail relations. :)

Joseph Shumway is back! He's one of my favorites!

Remind me which deSpencer and how that factors into FDR and GWB.

[Glaze Crazy]

Going back 20 generations to find an ancestor who's a king is a fun anecdote to share with the family but by now you are just another of a million or more people who can say the same. I also like the stories that focus on ancestors closer on the family tree. I am looking forward to the rest of the stories this season though. It looks like a mixed bag of possibilities.

[Snarklepuss]

ITA, @Glaze Crazy, I was going to say the same thing.  It feels a little weak and even desperate seeing these stars get all excited and proud about something that half of Europe probably has in their family tree too.  I guess the producers of this show don't aim it at people that know that, but who else would be watching but people that know at least that?  I'm not an expert by a long shot but even I know that.  Based on what I've done on Ancestry.com and through published genealogies I descend from some pretty interesting and/or famous/historical people much closer to the present so when I see that they have to go THAT far back to find something interesting it kind of loses its appeal for me.  The rest of the season does look pretty interesting, though!

[Ina123]

I've been researching my genealogy for about ten years. My line follows Courtney's a lot. I'm a direct descendant of Maurice Berkeley and the Mortimers also. She was so excited about being a direct descendant of William the Conqueror but, truth be told, if you are of English heritage from way back. chances are he is in your blood somewhere.

[Suzysite]

Quote

if you are of English heritage from way back. chances are he is in your blood somewhere.

Isn't it the truth.  William the Conqueror was my 29th great-grandfather.  A fact that amazed me until I realized just how many people could also claim him as a relative.   But hey, CC and I are cousins a zillion times removed.

[attica]

9 hours ago, maraleia said:

Remind me which deSpencer and how that factors into FDR and GWB.

I stole it from wiki:

Quote

The New England Protestant reformer Anne (Marbury) Hutchinson was a descendant of Hugh through his grandson Edward. Through her, many Americans including Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush, can claim Hugh the younger as an ancestor.

[riverblue22]

I think the producers like to come up with a mix of stories from a variety of time periods.  I don't think they have covered that particular story from history before.  I am sure there were more recent ancestors they could have covered with Courtney Cox, but maybe they already told those stories (eg. Revolutionary War, Civil War, witches)

[ShelleySue]

4 hours ago, Ina123 said:

ve been researching my genealogy for about ten years. My line follows Courtney's a lot. I'm a direct descendant of Maurice Berkeley and the Mortimers also. She was so excited about being a direct descendant of William the Conqueror but, truth be told, if you are of English heritage from way back. chances are he is in your blood somewhere.

 

2 hours ago, Suzysite said:

William the Conqueror was my 29th great-grandfather.  A fact that amazed me until I realized just how many people could also claim him as a relative.  

Hello to my newly found cousins-in-laws!

I would have been interested in her relatives who were in colonial Virginia.  Does anyone know how the show is filmed?  For example, did CC go to Virginia, etc and that footage wasn't used or did she go right to England?

[scootypuffjr]

Ha, my mother traced us back to William the Conqueror too. We must all have a family reunion one of these days!

(Once she had a dream where she traced us all the way back to Adam, who coincidentally looked just like my father. I wonder if Adam wore the same glasses as he did, lol.)

[pally]

20 hours ago, my3sons said:

I haven't seen all the episodes but it seems as though the celebrity either has a notable ancestor (Courtney Cox, Valerie Bertinelli, Cindy Crawford) or an interesting story (the one that comes to mind is Scott Foley's ancestor being a 'bodyguard' for George Washington).  Do you think the producers trace the ancestry before approaching the celebrity to do the show?

 

The English show reported that they film only about 1/3rd of the people they research.  And they get permission first before researching.

[Granny58]

On 3/6/2017 at 3:28 PM, my3sons said:

I haven't seen all the episodes but it seems as though the celebrity either has a notable ancestor (Courtney Cox, Valerie Bertinelli, Cindy Crawford) or an interesting story (the one that comes to mind is Scott Foley's ancestor being a 'bodyguard' for George Washington).  Do you think the producers trace the ancestry before approaching the celebrity to do the show?

Yes, I would think so.  No interest in tracing back to the dirt farmers (that would be MY family).

[Chicklet]

Yay family reunion (Mortimers and deSpensers) and I'm a history nerd so I'm all about this stuff. I just couldn't focus on anything other than her lips. Don't know what she's doing but she should stop.

[attica]

I wonder if they coach participants to ask exposition questions, or if that comes naturally (depending on the celeb, that is)? Courtney's question about what-all 'aristocracy' means seems like a good way for the historian to explain things. Obviously, we modern Americans tend to think aristocrats = rich people, but there certainly was more heavy lifting to it back in the day.

On the other hand, I do believe that Chris O'Donnell had no idea about what happened at Ft. McHenry. Hee.

[Ina123]

8 minutes ago, attica said:

On the other hand, I do believe that Chris O'Donnell had no idea about what happened at Ft. McHenry. Hee.

I've seen people defend him but that's how I saw it, too. Or he was having a really big brain fart.

[maraleia]

I really liked how much Courteney was promoting learning history in general because that's sorely lacking in most of American society. Personally, I don't understand it because really history is one big soap opera or reality show.

[camom]

When I was learning history in school, it seemed like most of it was learning the dates of battles, etc.  It wasn't presented in a way that was interesting or relatable.  I find it much more interesting when I can just learn and not have to memorize facts for a test.

I watched Courteney's episode with a neighbor who could trace her family back to the same people, so it was interesting for her.  Of course, there are probably millions out there who could do the same.

[JeanneH]

3 hours ago, maraleia said:

really history is one big soap opera or reality show.

I was thinking that about how it was being presented for Courtney, and then she came out and said it was one big soap opera! lol

[marina to]

I hadn't seen anyone traced back to William the Conqueror before so I was excited as her. Seeing Berkeley castle and the trial room at Westminster made the episode for me. That final scroll was gorgeous!

[Vandy10]

I enjoyed this episode and going back 700+ years. It's not that I don't find the 18th/19th/early20th centuries interesting, because I do. But I feel like those eras and stories come up much more frequently on this show than medieval times.

[attica]

3 hours ago, Vandy10 said:

But I feel like those eras and stories come up much more frequently on this show than medieval times.

You're right: they do, because unless you're royalty (or royalty adjacent), there just aren't records going back that far. Nobody's keeping tabs on how many kids the medieval scythers are having, more's the pity. Church records can sometimes be good, but even they are spotty, what with all the reformations and realignments and fires and plagues and stuff.

[Lugal]

It was a fascinating episode, to see CC's family traced back that far.  I would agree most of the questions she asked seemed like they are for explanations for the viewers.  It's interesting since I traced my line back to William the Conqueror as well, so Courteney and I are distant cousins as well.

[maraleia]

Wow so Julie Bowen's great grandfather on her mom's side was someone who rounded up Germans living in America during WWI for the APL. Like he was the leader. I loved that she spoke out about the potential Muslim registry being floated around right now/rounding up of undocumented immigrants. 

Suck it Ben Affleck.

Love that her three times great grandfather on her dad's side was a member of the American Anti-Slavery Society in Pennsylvania and traveled in the South to speak out against slavery and his home was a way station on the Underground Railroad.  Loved the bee hive story so much.

So what this show proves is we gloss over a lot of American history in school because Julie's gaps in knowledge are large and she doesn't strike me as someone who didn't pay attention in school. US History textbooks suck.

Side note- the Nate and Jeremiah by design show looks really fun.

[Granny58]

Julie Bowen was insufferable.

[ChicagoCita]

Re: Edward II -- I saw where he is buried in a tour of Gloucester Cathedral, and the wonderful OAP guide told his story in very emotional and hushed tones. So I was impressed CC was his descendant, and would be thrilled if I were to be, as well. When people get emotionally involved in history, instead of making it all about dates and battles, that's when I find it most fascinating. I love how this show does that.

The episodes been very Chicago-centric over the past few seasons. I was thrilled to watch Julie Bowen learn about German the registry during WWI in Chicago, because my great-grandparents were German immigrants in Chicago at that time. I guess I'll be paying a visit to the Pritzker Military Museum sometime soon.

I really do like this show, even with the flaws and foibles.

[BusyOctober]

37 minutes ago, Granny58 said:

Julie Bowen was insufferable.

This.  I used to watch "Modern Family", and I never minded Julie Bowen's exasperated, over-acting there b/c I thought it was a character choice made by the actor.  Nope.  She spoke every line in this WDYTYA in the same wide eyed surprised, over-emphasizing manner. 

I'm glad that she took in the info about her Chicago ancestor's not-so cool role re. German witch hunts and processed it (vs. Ben Affleck's literal white-washing of his family tree).  Not many people would be excited to learn their relatives had a hand in despicable events;  "Wow! Cool, my 3x GG was a prison guard at Auschwitz!"  "I'm so glad to know my 3rd cousin twice removed was the guy who locked all the doors at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company!" I also liked how she noted this unfavorable past behavior has unfortunately continued to repeat itself many times in the US's xenophobic history. Irish, Germans, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Syrians...every wave of immigration seems to incite new ways to punish or demonize the "threat" of newcomers.

However, on the flip side, it bugs me when these celebrities discover their ancestors were on the right side of history, especially when it comes to the issue of slavery in the US.  I get that these folks are relieved to know their families weren't integral part of owning, ruling over, or dehumanizing slaves.  Yet, there's something kind of bothersome about the glee in the eyes of (mostly white) people who find out some great great grand somebody was involved in abolitionism or helped escaped slaves.  I can't exactly pin point why it bugs, but its almost as if the celeb is patting him/herself on the back for having come from "good" people.  As if the deeds of someone they may never have heard of before this show, confirms that he/she is also an upstanding person.  It's a new way to show your liberalism or your open mindedness a la "I have friends who are black/Muslim/Jewish/gay!"  I know I'm probably not expressing myself correctly; I'd be proud as hell if I had these acts of everyday heroism & courage among my people!  But the celebrities twisting those acts into their own personality doesn't ring right with me. 

[Shannon L.]

17 minutes ago, BusyOctober said:

1 hour ago, Granny58 said:

Julie Bowen was insufferable.

This.  I used to watch "Modern Family", and I never minded Julie Bowen's exasperated, over-acting there b/c I thought it was a character choice made by the actor.  Nope.  She spoke every line in this WDYTYA in the same wide eyed surprised, over-emphasizing manner. 

I'm jumping out of lurking to agree with this. I told my husband that she could possibly be a really nice person who would give you the shirt off her back, but she seems like the type who is always on, always performing, and that it feels like it would be exhausting to spend any amount of time with her! 

I hated history in high school (which was about 30 years ago), so I'm learning a ton of fascinating information in this show that I'd either forgotten or never learned in the first place.  The APL?!  Who knew about that?  Our 15 year old daughter has had some really good history classes and enjoys them, so she surprises me on a regular basis about what she knows about our history, but even she hadn't heard about the APL (they just did WWI a couple of months ago).

[ChicagoCita]

2 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

But the celebrities twisting those acts into their own personality doesn't ring right with me. 

Anyone taking the attributes of their ancestors and seeing them in themselves bugs me. I'm very different from my own parents, so I doubt any attributes or flaws of generations five times removed manifest themselves in me. The only things I will claim for myself are physical (from those who lived in the farthest north part of Scotland, I am open to saying that's why I have S.A.D., and to my German ancestors, thanks for the boobage!) But I'm not going to say, for example, my compassion for animals is due to my 2x-great-grandfather being a vet. I can see having pride in being descended from people who did admirable things -- but I draw the line at anything non-physical being inherited from them. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there are genes for courage and daring -- but until they are proven, I will continue to roll my eyes at people who claim their ancestors' greatness for their own.

Edited March 13, 2017 by ChicagoCita

[camom]

I'm right there with you, ChicagoCita.  The "my great-great uncle was an artist and I'm an actor -- we're just alike!" bugs the heck out of me.  And the people who act like they must be good people because their ancestors were.  I can see feeling bad if you find out that your ancestors were slave owners or whatever, but it's not something you personally need to take responsibility for.  

And yes, Julie Bowen was insufferable.

[Ina123]

8 minutes ago, camom said:

And yes, Julie Bowen was insufferable.

Sanctimonious came to my mind.

[iMonrey]

She didn't bug me, but I don't watch Modern Family so I have no preconceived notions about her.

I'd never heard of the American Protective League either and I thought the story was pretty enlightening given the current political climate. Heck you could say the story is relevant in any era. The story about the other great-grandfather and abolition was interesting too.

However (and I know I harp on this all the time) this is the second episode in a row where the show has chosen not to spell out the tree or lineage from the ancestor to the descendant. We know it was her 3x great grandfather but how she can trace herself to that specific person is left to the imagination. It is clearly not her father's father' father' father, since the name is different. Is it her father's mother's mother's father, or her father's father's mother's father . . . you get the idea. I don't know why they can't show us the tree. They used to be fairly good about that.

The cynic in me suspects the show deliberately avoids showing how that tree works because they know it makes the relationship seem a bit more tenuous when you have to jump around every generation to make the connection. It's more compelling to say "my great great great grandfather" than "my father's mother's mother's father." Because I'm pretty sure the show works its way backwards digging for an interesting story to tell then over-plays the actual relationship to the celebrity.

[Cyranetta]

Actually I can understand why the tree isn't fully detailed. It would be natural for viewers to get distracted by the the other ancestors ("I wonder what happened to him/her?"). WDYTYA is a much a focused story as it is genealogical research.

[Lugal]

Julie Bowen was definitely animated.  The last thing I really saw her on was Ed years ago.

I had never heard of the American Protective League either, but having some German-American ancestors around at that time it does make it a bit more personal.

As for having ancestors who are the right side of history, it's cool to have pride in it, but too many people seem to take it for bragging rights.  The projection of traits from ancestors can bug, especially when it's clearly reading something into an ancestor that one wants to see, but I think certain personality traits can make their way down the generations: like when I found out about an ancestor who ran off with another woman, there was a deposition from his brother that said (paraphrasing) "He brought this woman around and said he was going to marry her.  I told him it wasn't a good idea, but he did it anyway."  I told my dad that, he laughed and said, yeah, that's our family.  We call it a healthy dose of fuck-you-ism.

[sskrill]

She didn't really bother me but I had no idea who she was.  I looked her up on IMDB and still didn't know who she was.

The Ancestry Facebook thread is full of a bunch of really angry right leaning folks.  I don't see the point of getting that upset - she was a one time guest.  You disagree with her, fine, you think she's not the sharpest tool, fine, but the threats of boycotting the show over a handful of mild comments while talking about HER OWN family just seems ridiculous.  

I thought it was interesting overall.  I learned some things I didn't know and having the historical society be in her family's former home was cool.

Moving on...

[Snarklepuss]

12 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

However, on the flip side, it bugs me when these celebrities discover their ancestors were on the right side of history, especially when it comes to the issue of slavery in the US.  I get that these folks are relieved to know their families weren't integral part of owning, ruling over, or dehumanizing slaves.  Yet, there's something kind of bothersome about the glee in the eyes of (mostly white) people who find out some great great grand somebody was involved in abolitionism or helped escaped slaves.  I can't exactly pin point why it bugs, but its almost as if the celeb is patting him/herself on the back for having come from "good" people.  As if the deeds of someone they may never have heard of before this show, confirms that he/she is also an upstanding person.  It's a new way to show your liberalism or your open mindedness a la "I have friends who are black/Muslim/Jewish/gay!"  I know I'm probably not expressing myself correctly; I'd be proud as hell if I had these acts of everyday heroism & courage among my people!  But the celebrities twisting those acts into their own personality doesn't ring right with me. 

I know, it's like they're using their ancestors to get over their inherited "white guilt".  She had this pathological look of relief on her face to find out about her abolishionist ancestors, as if she can now rest knowing that she doesn't have to feel as guilty anymore for reaping the benefits what she would see as her "white privilege".

I'm neither right nor left leaning, but I am getting tired of all the sanctimoniousness (thanks for that word, @Ina123) coming from Hollywood these days. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Snarklepuss

[Cara]

It is commendable that Julie Bowen's ancestor was active in the abolitionist movement. It was a terrible thing that my 3x great grandfather owned slaves. But their actions say absolutely nothing about either of us!

[Snarklepuss]

3 hours ago, Cara said:

It is commendable that Julie Bowen's ancestor was active in the abolitionist movement. It was a terrible thing that my 3x great grandfather owned slaves. But their actions say absolutely nothing about either of us!

What bothered me is how she put down big Charlie, saying he "looked like a Jerk".  Just WOW.  This is her 2nd Great Grandfather!  You would think he was a murderer or something.  My 2nd great GF was a French immigrant who ran ammunition to the confederates via his shipping business during the Civil War (for which my Yankee GGM left him when she found out) but I would never call him names or act like he was making me feel ashamed!!  It is what it is and it's hard to judge people so far in the future.  Who knows what their motivations were?  Plus people have to be seen in the context of their times.  I also can't carry the blame for what any of my ancestors did.  But we have people who are walking around today bearing the collective guilt for what was done over 100 years ago.  It's ridiculous!

[Granny58]

10 hours ago, sskrill said:

She didn't really bother me but I had no idea who she was.  I looked her up on IMDB and still didn't know who she was.

The Ancestry Facebook thread is full of a bunch of really angry right leaning folks.  I don't see the point of getting that upset - she was a one time guest.  You disagree with her, fine, you think she's not the sharpest tool, fine, but the threats of boycotting the show over a handful of mild comments while talking about HER OWN family just seems ridiculous.  

I thought it was interesting overall.  I learned some things I didn't know and having the historical society be in her family's former home was cool.

Moving on...

Even though I was somewhat annoyed by some of her comments, I found her insufferable because of the way she finished everyone's sentences and was overly animated.  I can't stand her character on MF, with the arm flapping and head bobbing - but I thought it was acting.  I was wrong.  

[attica]

21 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

Yet, there's something kind of bothersome about the glee in the eyes of (mostly white) people who find out some great great grand somebody was involved in abolitionism or helped escaped slaves.

Unless my ability to read faces is very much mistaken, the African American historian sitting with her was definitely, 'girl, please' while Julie was getting giddy. "It's nice to have heroes" was extremely elegant shade, if you ask me. Yep, LeMoyne was a hero, no question. And maybe Julie could get over herself an inch or so -- White Savior isn't a good pose. That said, it was cool that LeMoyne's house was the home for the historical society, and it was touching that Bowen had coincidentally named one of her kids John. (I grew up with a ton of boys named John. Nobody names their kids John anymore!)

I think the show has changed runners or writers, or something. This season's eps are (so far) much better put together, and less clunkily presented than past seasons. The exposition is smoother, and the subjects seem much more engaged with the historians/genealogists than they have in the past.

3 hours ago, Snarklepuss said:

What bothered me is how she put down big Charlie, saying he "looked like a Jerk".

I take your point, but it's hard not to take her view of a dude wearing an armband and jackboots. If not for his politics, at least for his fashion sense!