Finding Your Roots With Henry Louis Gates Jr. - General Discussion

[Yeah No]

9 hours ago, sempervivum said:

I agree. Claire Danes seemed to take every bit of info and over-analyze or intellectualize it, rather than project any straight-forward emotion. I was especially annoyed at her calling Margaret Scott's execution a 'tragedy'. Honey, a tragedy would be 'she fell in the river and drowned'. Being hanged for supposedly being a witch is 'INJUSTICE'.

Jeff Danels looks older than 67 to me. In general, he didn't seem to be really connecting to his ancestral history, not sure if he didn't understand or didn't have enough history background to evaluate the info. 

Yep, I agree with both of you.  In the middle of all that it also seemed strange to me that Claire broke out in tears at one point.  It didn't seem to follow from the way she acted right before that or from what she was learning in that moment for her to be that emotional about it.  And then she went right back to being over-analytical about it.  It was a head-scratcher for me.

It didn't help that the Salem witch trials have been featured over and over again on many genealogy shows.  It's become a "been there/done that" thing for me.  I'm sure that with the kind of ancestry she has there are many other interesting ancestors they could trace her to and profile, maybe teaching the audience something new and interesting instead of giving us the usual very glossed-over, textbook description of someone's connection to Salem.

[OtterMommy]

9 hours ago, Yeah No said:

It didn't help that the Salem witch trials have been featured over and over again on many genealogy shows.  It's become a "been there/done that" thing for me. 

I guess I see things a little bit differently.  The producers (writers? whoever it is who makes decisions) of this show are really limited by what is in someone's ancestry.  Their first issue is finiding people who have something notable in their ancestry in the first place.  After that, they kind of have to take what they get.  Things like the Civil War, and to a lesser extent, the Salem WItch Trials,  are going to show up frequently because they are both part of US History and involved a large number of people (more the Civil War that the Salem Witch Trials, obviously).

I think there are only two places where I think they have some sort of control over this--one of which they do well and one they do...less well.  First, how they arrange their season.  We may see things like the Civil War or slaveholding or whatnot show up multiple times, but they either group them together in one episode or separate them throughout the season so you don't get back to back episodes covering the same thing.  Because of this, I'm not irritated by seeing the same historical events pop up again and again, as long as they aren't back to back or disproportionately appear in a season.

What they do less well is the general diversity of the show.  Yes, they have guests of various racial, religious, ethnic backgrounds, but the bulk of their guests are still American.  One of my favorite episodes was the one with Lupita Nyong'o because her background was NOT American.  I get that researching ancestors outside of the US is more difficult for their genealogists, but it isn't impossible and I think it would great enhance the show if they would start looking outside of North America for guests.

[Mermaid Under]

Quote

of this show are really limited by what is in someone's ancestry.  Their first issue is finiding people who have something notable in their ancestry in the first place

I agree with you about the limitations, but I think there is one step that happens before all of things you mentioned.   You have to be a known name that will bring in an audience beyond genealogy buffs  (Hollywood, Broadway, politics, science) to even be considered for this show.  I think that is one area where Gates has some say, because we have had some much lesser known academics and artists that are probably his personal friends.

[OtterMommy]

5 minutes ago, Mermaid Under said:

I agree with you about the limitations, but I think there is one step that happens before all of things you mentioned.   You have to be a known name that will bring in an audience beyond genealogy buffs  (Hollywood, Broadway, politics, science) to even be considered for this show.  I think that is one area where Gates has some say, because we have had some much lesser known academics and artists that are probably his personal friends.

Good point.  There have been guests who I have never heard of.

That being said, I'd like to see the ratio of entertainment celebrities to other notables even out a bit.  I know that guests need to have some name recognition and entertainment celebrities are your safest bet there.  However, I'd like to see more writers, retired and/or non-controversial public figures, well-known business people, etc.

[meep.meep]

These two guests were featured together because their ancestors were on opposite sides of the Salem Witch Trials.  Danes' ancestor was an accused witch who was executed, Daniels' ancestor was one making the accusations.

If the show features many people not known to the general public, would people watch?

[OtterMommy]

1 minute ago, meep.meep said:

If the show features many people not known to the general public, would people watch?

I don't think they should have "nobodies" or incredibly obscure celebrities, however this is a PBS show so they can step away from A-listers a bit into lesser known celebrities and non-entertainment celebrities and the majority of viewers will probably have at least heard of them.

Also, I'm guessing that there are people (such as myself), who watch the show for family stories, not for the celebritites.

[Suzn]

23 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

I don't think they should have "nobodies" or incredibly obscure celebrities, however this is a PBS show so they can step away from A-listers a bit into lesser known celebrities and non-entertainment celebrities and the majority of viewers will probably have at least heard of them.

Also, I'm guessing that there are people (such as myself), who watch the show for family stories, not for the celebritites.

It doesn't have to be celebrities for me, but I do like when it's someone I like with an interesting story.  However,  I don't even know all the celebrities and enjoy the stories just as much.

It would be good to occasionally select a non-celebrity who could use some help with their research.  ...Pick me, pick me...

Edited January 12, 2023 by Suzn

[Jane Tuesday]

Honestly, half the time I haven't heard of the actors anyway, outside of recognizing their name or the name of their show(s) during the bio. I do remember a few years ago they did scientists, which was really interesting.

I wonder if they do any digging before they book people to see what - if anything - interesting they have in their family tree?

[OtterMommy]

12 minutes ago, Jane Tuesday said:

Honestly, half the time I haven't heard of the actors anyway, outside of recognizing their name or the name of their show(s) during the bio. I do remember a few years ago they did scientists, which was really interesting.

I wonder if they do any digging before they book people to see what - if anything - interesting they have in their family tree?

Someone posted somewhere earlier on this thread that they do do some preliminary searching to make sure there is something there to talk about.  There is no way that every actor in Hollywood is descended from a passenger on the Mayflower, as well as a Civil War General.

[Yeah No]

8 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I guess I see things a little bit differently.  The producers (writers? whoever it is who makes decisions) of this show are really limited by what is in someone's ancestry.  Their first issue is finiding people who have something notable in their ancestry in the first place.  After that, they kind of have to take what they get.  Things like the Civil War, and to a lesser extent, the Salem WItch Trials,  are going to show up frequently because they are both part of US History and involved a large number of people (more the Civil War that the Salem Witch Trials, obviously).

I hear you but as someone with ancestry in that general time and place I know that when you do it's virtually impossible not to have something notable in your tree somewhere, and usually many notable things of which a connection to the Salem trials might be only one.  The population was so relatively small and immigration so slow by today's standards that you had a group of people working from a relatively small gene pool in a limited geographic area for a few generations, and they tended to have a lot of kids.  Plus people alive today with roots to that time and place would be descended from a whole LOT of people from that period.  Put those two things together and it's amazing.  I am related to so many famous Americans by at least a cousin relationship that's incredible to contemplate.  And descended from a lot too.  And I only have this ancestry on my paternal grandmother's side, so you can imagine that there would be even more of it in someone who was descended from this time and place on more sides. Even with my small thread to this area I amt descended from more than one Mayflower passenger, several Revolutionary War heroes, and at least distant cousins with founding fathers, etc.  So that's why I find it hard to believe that we keep coming back to the Salem Witch trials and other "popular" history because there's not much else to talk about.  I just think it's because it's what they think is most fascinating to the general public.

[Driad]

I don't care whether someone is a celebrity, and a "different" story is refreshing.  IIRC one guest had an ancestor (a formerly enslaved woman) who went out to Oregon or Washington and homesteaded. The challenges she faced and overcame were quite interesting.

Wishing they would bring back Genealogy Roadshow.

[PRgal]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

I hear you but as someone with ancestry in that general time and place I know that when you do it's virtually impossible not to have something notable in your tree somewhere, and usually many notable things of which a connection to the Salem trials might be only one.  The population was so relatively small and immigration so slow by today's standards that you had a group of people working from a relatively small gene pool in a limited geographic area for a few generations, and they tended to have a lot of kids.  Plus people alive today with roots to that time and place would be descended from a whole LOT of people from that period.  Put those two things together and it's amazing.  I am related to so many famous Americans by at least a cousin relationship that's incredible to contemplate.  And descended from a lot too.  And I only have this ancestry on my paternal grandmother's side, so you can imagine that there would be even more of it in someone who was descended from this time and place on more sides. Even with my small thread to this area I amt descended from more than one Mayflower passenger, several Revolutionary War heroes, and at least distant cousins with founding fathers, etc.  So that's why I find it hard to believe that we keep coming back to the Salem Witch trials and other "popular" history because there's not much else to talk about.  I just think it's because it's what they think is most fascinating to the general public.

I do wonder, though, if it's sometimes harder to find records of people who are descended from more recent immigrants.  Wars and revolutions can lead to destruction of documents.  Even an accidental fire at a church could destroy generations of baptismal information.  And maybe some people didn't want to travel to Europe/Asia/Africa to look at their ancestral records?  

[pasdetrois]

I became distracted by Jeff Daniels' odd attempts at commentary. He seemed to be struggling to think of things to say. Maybe a good indicator of the need to refresh the show's format. The subjects' responses are formulaic.

[shapeshifter]

11 minutes ago, pasdetrois said:

I became distracted by Jeff Daniels' odd attempts at commentary. He seemed to be struggling to think of things to say. Maybe a good indicator of the need to refresh the show's format. The subjects' responses are formulaic.

I wonder if there was a presumption that Jeff Daniels would find more ways to contrast his experience as characters in Civil War films, but he didn't find it relevant? 

[iMonrey]

Quote

So that's why I find it hard to believe that we keep coming back to the Salem Witch trials and other "popular" history because there's not much else to talk about.  I just think it's because it's what they think is most fascinating to the general public.

Or they're just lazy. As I posted earlier, we've already had our history lesson about Andersonville Prison. Maybe more than once before. It seems more and more like they find some ancestor who was in the Civil War or World War I or II and then just pull out the same old history lesson and really lay it on thick about how terrible it was for someone back then.

I'd be far more impressed if they drew a straight line from there to the celeb they're profiling. As a result of his ancestor being in that prison, his son wound up doing X, Y or Z, which is how his grandson wound up where he was, and how his great-grandson wound up where he was, which led to his great-great grandson being in the circumstances he was, being the celeb's grandfather. 

Instead, all we get is "oh look your great-great-great grandfather was in the Civil War. Here's a history lesson on the Civil War! Again. Some more. That doesn't tell me anything at all about how that made any difference to the celeb.

[Driad]

There are all sorts of possible stories. In my ancestry I have a couple: the man's grandfather fought for the Union, and the woman's grandfather fought for the Confederacy.  I don't know how their families viewed the relationship.  Maybe in cases like this, the experts could find letters or diaries.

[shapeshifter]

The Salem Witch Trials attract more eyeballs among PBS subscribers and potential supporters. It's that simple. 
Got to keep the lights on in a competitive environment.

But also, as was mentioned briefly in this episode in an exchange between HLG and Claire Danes, the Salem Witch Trials parallel the events of our times, just as they paralleled the era of McCarthyism, when Arthur Miller used the Salem Witch Trials as a metaphor for the McCarthy hearings when he wrote The Crucible (1953).

Moreover, the descriptor "lazy" always sets off a little smoke alarm in my brain, because more often than not it doesn't really apply. ⭐
Here we have an established show that has done a lot of research on the Civil War, Slavery in the United States, the Holocaust, and, to a lesser degree, the Salem Witch Trials. In the process of researching these historical events, they have likely unearthed other fascinating stories that are just waiting for a "celebrity" guest to give those stories a relatable face. And they also have established connections to sources that they likely hope to go back to while they still can, but need some fresh data to mine.

 

_________________________________________

⭐Also, I'm old enough to have heard the word lazy used as half of a racist slur and as a racist trope.
And Lazy was often used by abusive parents to berate their kids (not by my parents).
So it always rankles me to hear the word unless it's something like that song about the "lazy days of summer." 
I don't mean to imply that we should "cancel" the word, just that so often its use is, well, "lazy." 😉

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by shapeshifter

[Driad]

As another example, IIRC the "Finding Your Roots" team is working on the Tulsa Race Massacre: looking for information, descendants of victims and survivors, etc.  Presumably there will be a special episode on that when they are ready.

[iMonrey]

Quote

The Salem Witch Trials are a ratings booster. It's that simple. 
Got to keep the lights on in a competitive environment.

It's PBS. They shouldn't have to rely on ratings.

[shapeshifter]

11 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Quote

The Salem Witch Trials are a ratings booster. It's that simple. 
Got to keep the lights on in a competitive environment.

It's PBS. They shouldn't have to rely on ratings.

True.
I just edited my post to read:

• The Salem Witch Trials attract more eyeballs among PBS subscribers and potential supporters. It's that simple. 
  Got to keep the lights on in a competitive environment.

[Yeah No]

On 1/13/2023 at 11:46 AM, iMonrey said:

Or they're just lazy. As I posted earlier, we've already had our history lesson about Andersonville Prison. Maybe more than once before. It seems more and more like they find some ancestor who was in the Civil War or World War I or II and then just pull out the same old history lesson and really lay it on thick about how terrible it was for someone back then.

Could be, but I'm also wondering if certain historical events are just the favorites of HLG and so he is naturally inclined to repeat them again and again.  A lot of genealogy shows I've watched keep coming back to both Salem and the Civil War.  It might not only be about what's interesting to the viewers but what are the favorite "pet" topics of the genealogists involved in producing these shows.

[Lovecat]

On 1/11/2023 at 11:19 AM, iMonrey said:

They [didn't] reveal surprising DNA relatives this week so I guess they didn't have any. 

 

On 1/11/2023 at 1:52 PM, OtterMommy said:

It might be because their DNA research didn't turn up anything of note and they had to fill up the time they would normally devote to that?

I was fully expecting a "DNA cousin" for Clare Danes.  In the preview, we saw her turning to the last page of her Book of Life and freaking tee eff out, and in the episode itself we saw the book open to the last page on the table in front of her, with a headshot of someone I couldn't make out, while she shared some closing thoughts with Dr. Gates.  My husband and I think she shares DNA with someone coming up in the series, and they didn't want to spoil that surprise this early on.  I guess we shall see!

[Blergh]

I wonder if Cher and Carol Burnett could have  ancestors in common in Arkansas (and perhaps the late Lana Turner).

[Jane Tuesday]

Re: Joe Manganiello...

My understanding is that HLG didn't contact him because of

Spoiler

Black ancestors (although he does have them), but because his grandfather was - unknown to them - not really his grandfather. Apparently it's SOP for the show when they find a non-paternity event in the celeb's family tree.

HLG tells them offline and gives them a chance to opt out of doing the show. 

[Mannahatta]

I was almost ready to give up on this show but this last episode with Carol Burnett and Niecy Nash was everything. It was moving. it was funny. There were unexpected twists and turns. It was even educational. (I had no idea that 10 percent of the Confederate Army deserted.) Even Henry Louis Gates seemed wittier than usual. And what made it all these things were the two guests. They were both so warm and real. I teared up when Carol Burnett described her last visit with her father, and Niecy Nash shared her efforts to rouse her mother out of mourning. I felt new found admiration for both women. It's not just their careers but their personal qualities that gave their stories meaning. Lately a lot of the guests seem kind of emotionally closed off - which is ironic since so many are actors. But not these two! This episode definitely reminded me of why I started to watch this series to begin with.

[Suzn]

This was a great show. Both Carol Burnett and Niecy Nash were really engaged with their stories and I was too.  Their reactions were so genuine and touching.  Carol's story was so sad and yet she took the good and made the most of it - actually, so did Niecy.  It was a perfect balance of very personal stories mixed with a bigger picture of history.

[Mermaid Under]

Quote

  Carol's story was so sad and yet she took the good and made the most of it

I knew when it was announced that I would enjoy Carol Burnett, but I didn't realize how much.  She asked the question that the show never does - because it makes things muddy, and doesn't serve their purpose - nature or nurture?  HLG is always telling his guests that they inherited their courage or strength directly from their ancestors (always a good trait, never a bad one).  And anyone with half a brain knows it isn't that simple.
Carol Burnett had two alcoholic parents but didn't become an addict herself.  At least two of her daughters had addiction problems.  Was that DNA, or being brought up in Hollywood, with money? Nature or nurture?

[iMonrey]

This episode was far more interesting than the last two IMO. Both were looking to solve family mysteries, and in Niecy's case she didn't even know about it. Kind of weird they knew so little about Niecy's bio grandfather but could trace his ancestry all the way back to the slave era. 

For me, these kinds of stories are just way more interesting than "your father's father's mother's father's father was in the civil war." Grandparents, and great-grandparents, are more immediate and people the celebrities may have actually known. 

[sempervivum]

Did I miss the part about Niecy's childhood? I heard that her parents divorced, but then the story skipped to her brother being killed when she was 23 or 24. She was able to go to college, so apparently she had some support system; I wasn't sure why HLG was comparing her early life to the truly rough start of Carol Burnett. Carol's success being fueled by the financial help from a complete stranger was amazing (to me).

I also wanted to hear something about how Carol's last name changed from Burget (her patriot ancestor Lambert) to Burnett.

I teared up at Niecy's little speech about her mantra 'no matter what'.

[shapeshifter]

ITA with all of the above posts, and will add that IMO, Season 9, Episode 3, “Secret Lives,” in which: 

• “Henry Louis Gates, Jr. uses DNA to help comedians Carol Burnett and Niecy Nash solve deep family mysteries.“

is the all-time best episode of the Finding Your Roots series because of the incredible, indomitable personalities of Carol Burnett and Niecy Nash.  
Kudos and thank you to whomever had the vision to put them together in one episode.

I have always felt drawn to both Carol Burnett and Niecy Nash when they were on screen, and identified with each of them for  inexplicable reasons. Now I realize it’s because both are such entirely open and genuine individuals——false eyelashes and curtain dresses not withstanding. 
 

 
About Niecy’s surprise grandfather reveal:   
Since he fathered Niecy’s grandmother’s only children (twin boys IIRC), I wonder about the seeming marriage of convenience Nicey’s grandmother had. There are several explanations, none of which seem knowable. 

 
 
We often compliment elderly actors for still being (comparatively) mentally sharp.
But wow. Carol Burnett is the real deal.

Edited January 18, 2023 by shapeshifter
Got generations confused

[Jane Tuesday]

Did y'all know about this?!?

 

[12catcrazy]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

 

 
About Niecy’s surprise grandfather reveal:   
Since he fathered both Niecy and her brother, and since her mother had no other children, I wonder about the seeming marriage of convenience Nicey’s Mom had. There are several explanations, none of which seem knowable. 

 
 
We often compliment elderly actors for still being (comparatively) mentally sharp.
But wow. Carol Burnett is the real deal.

Am I confused  but wasn't it Niecy's grandmother that had a marriage of convenience and not her mother?    And I'm forgetting how many children the grandmother had and if they all had the same father.  

[shapeshifter]

5 minutes ago, 12catcrazy said:

Am I confused  but wasn't it Niecy's grandmother that had a marriage of convenience and not her mother?    And I'm forgetting how many children the grandmother had and if they all had the same father.  

Oops! Right! I will edit my post.

[iMonrey]

I wonder why Carol's cousin thought their grandmother's second husband was Carol's grandfather. 

[Arcadiasw]

1 hour ago, Jane Tuesday said:

Did y'all know about this?!?

 

I didn't but I am going to apply. I doubt I will be picked but I will take any opportunity to find out the mysteries on both my parents sides. 

[Suzn]

1 hour ago, Arcadiasw said:

I didn't but I am going to apply. I doubt I will be picked but I will take any opportunity to find out the mysteries on both my parents sides. 

I was going to apply but I stopped at the need for a 2-3 minute video.  I just can't bring myself to do that, but I'd really like professional genealogical research help with my most frustrating brick wall.  I have tracked my great-great grandfather through the census years to 1900 where he, at 71, is living with his son and family and there he disappears as if abducted by aliens.  I've looked through miles of microfilm for an obit or death notice and walked through miles of cemeteries.  What adds to my frustration is that this very rural farming county is where I grew up.  Sigh...

[shapeshifter]

17 hours ago, Suzn said:

I was going to apply but I stopped at the need for a 2-3 minute video. 

For me it's the opposite. Doing the video would be the fun part. 
But I don't really want to know details about relatives who died in the Holocaust or the pogroms of Russia or if I'm closer than a 30th cousin to Einstein.
And that's all there is.

——except maybe the changing of the family name in the 1850s to somehow avoid 25 year conscription into the Tsar’s army and forced religious conversion. But all the different families who now share the adopted name seem to know their different original names, so not much mystery.

Edited January 19, 2023 by shapeshifter

[Yeah No]

29 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

For me it's the opposite. Doing the video would be the fun part. 
But I don't really want to know details about relatives who died in the Holocaust or the pogroms of Russia or if I'm closer than a 30th cousin to Einstein
And that's all there is.

See now the Jewish side of my family is the one with the most mysteries and dead ends and I would like to know more about it even if it meant knowing about relatives that died in the Holocaust.  But I don't want to know bad enough to make a video either.

[mjt626]

Last night was a wonderful reminder of why I’ve loved this show over the years. And HLG doesn’t have to ask the same questions over and over, when the guests are engaging, although calling Carol and Niecy engaging, is a vast understatement. 

Fun fact, Niecy’s name is Carol Denise. Maybe he should interview people named Carol from now on…..

[Mermaid Under]

Did anyone else think that HLG seemed a little less than enthusiastic about the idea of opening up the program to the non-famous?  The wording of the video (I've tried to ignore you for 10 seasons) and his presentation sounded like he had been resisting this "pressure" for as long as he could. 

Also, given the things that they are asking people to do in order to qualify (not that any of it is unreasonable to me)  means that they will only get a certain subset of folks - they definitely want to do all they can to limit the number of stories they have to investigate to find two or three that will make it on the air.  

I'll put it right out there now - the qualifiers will have ancestors that were slaves, ancestors that owned slaves, or ancestors that were killed in the holocaust. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Mermaid Under

[PRgal]

1 hour ago, Mermaid Under said:

Did anyone else think that HLG seemed a little less than enthusiastic about the idea of opening up the program to the non-famous?  The wording of the video (I've tried to ignore you for 10 seasons) and his presentation sounded like he had been resisting this "pressure" for as long as he could. 

Also, given the things that they are asking people to do in order to qualify (not that any of it is unreasonable to me)  means that they will only get a certain subset of folks - they definitely want to do all they can to limit the number of stories they have to investigate to find two or three that will make it on the air.  

I'll put it right out there now - the qualifiers will have ancestors that were slaves, ancestors that owned slaves, or ancestors that were killed in the holocaust. 

Yep.  That boosts ratings more than "my ancestors were peasants in Sicily and scraped their savings to come here.  Oh yeah, and I think one of the village churches burned down.  Will need to track those baptismal and marriage certificates some how!"

[iMonrey]

Quote

Fun fact, Niecy’s name is Carol Denise.

And I don't think her real last name is Nash, either. They showed her father's last name on the family tree and it wasn't Nash. But the way they tend to skim across the tree makes it hard to catch the names. For the life of me I don't know why they do that. 

[Lovecat]

I am thankful to Niecy Nash for introducing the phrase "Dirty. Pots. And. Pans!" into my lexicon.

[mjt626]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

And I don't think her real last name is Nash, either. They showed her father's last name on the family tree and it wasn't Nash. But the way they tend to skim across the tree makes it hard to catch the names. For the life of me I don't know why they do that. 

Nash is her married name from her first husband.

[buckboard]

On 1/18/2023 at 4:57 AM, Mermaid Under said:

 Carol Burnett asked the question that the show never does - nature or nurture?  

Exactly, Mermaid Under.  While it is interesting -- and important -- to find out someone you thought was a relative isn't in fact your biological relative, when you've been raised all your life by someone, don't they deserve some credit in raising you?  Does a biological great-great-grandfather whose line you never knew about have more impact than the grandfather who raised you?

Edited January 19, 2023 by buckboard

[pasdetrois]

On 1/18/2023 at 12:06 AM, Mannahatta said:

(I had no idea that 10 percent of the Confederate Army deserted.)

My ancestor and his brothers served in Confederate forces. All of them came and went but were not punished. I was told that some officers allowed the men to go home and take care of family business; the officers looked the other way. It was not formal leave.

Apparently my ancestor became very ill while serving and succumbed to the illness months later, at home. His brother simply walked away from the Army and they didn't bother hunting him. They are documented as deserters however.

When I researched their regiments, I received a very stern reprimand from a modern volunteer who stopped just short of calling my relatives cowards. That was the least of my worries - I was still reeling from learning that I had Confederate soldier ancestors.

[Arcadiasw]

8 hours ago, Mermaid Under said:

Did anyone else think that HLG seemed a little less than enthusiastic about the idea of opening up the program to the non-famous?  The wording of the video (I've tried to ignore you for 10 seasons) and his presentation sounded like he had been resisting this "pressure" for as long as he could. 

Also, given the things that they are asking people to do in order to qualify (not that any of it is unreasonable to me)  means that they will only get a certain subset of folks - they definitely want to do all they can to limit the number of stories they have to investigate to find two or three that will make it on the air.  

I'll put it right out there now - the qualifiers will have ancestors that were slaves, ancestors that owned slaves, or ancestors that were killed in the holocaust. 

That and I feel anyone picked will have a TV charming personality and amazing current family story. I will apply and be as charming as I can but my life and the current generation of my family's pretty ordinary while the past family mysteries of my parents and grandparents are where the intriguing stuff is at. 😅

[Blergh]

On 1/18/2023 at 5:31 PM, iMonrey said:

I wonder why Carol's cousin thought their grandmother's second husband was Carol's grandfather. 

That's a good question! I read Miss Burnett's family bio One More Time (1986) and she said that her cousin Janice Vance had re-iterated what her own mother Eudora Creighton Vance (1907-1986) had told her- and it seemed a rather frequently told piece of gossip among the more distant cousins but, somehow, Miss Burnett's own late mother Louise Creighton Burnett (1911-1958) was kept out of that loop re the gossip about her paternity.

Anyway, one of the favorite stories 'Aunt Dodo' liked to tell was about her own father William Creighton (I'm somewhat paraphrasing the following).

'My Daddy was  a gentleman through and through. I was just a little bitty thing but I'll never forget being dragged to that courthouse with Mama's lawyer saying the most awful things about Daddy and Mama wagging her finger in Daddy's face and I could see Daddy had tears in the corners of his eyes but he never said a word back, not a word- although he could have EASILY put her in her place!'

Then towards the end of her life, when Miss Burnett's cousin Janice revealed the gossip, 'Aunt Dodo' piped up that 'Me and Sister had different daddies- that's a FACT!'

I suppose the fact that Mae Jones Creighton Melton. ..White (1885-1967) had evidently ... carried on while still married to Mr. Creighton AND that her younger sister Louise had brown hair while she shared the blonde locks of her father got 'Aunt Dodo' to conclude that Louise was by Mr. Melton.

Yes, Mae wasn't called the Belle of Belleville, Arkansas for nothing. As late as c.2001, when her great-granddaughter Carrie Louise Hamilton visited there(as recounted in Miss Burnett's bio of her late daughter Carrie and Me [2014]), folks were STILL talking about about how Mae had gotten intimately acquainted with Mr. Melton while wed to Mr. Creighton via teaching the first man piano-playing!

Well, too bad 'Aunt Dodo' isn't around to get shown up by the DNA facts that she and her younger sister WERE full sisters.

On another note, I thought about entering Dr. Gates's contest but, it wasn't the picture or the film that put me off but all the fine print that obligates that contestants to have all kinds of info shared with 3rd parties and several companies I never heard of that got me to back off.  Yes, I'd be willing to put up with that if I won but if I didn't then I don't think it would be worth having a bunch of personal info and data shared with so many entities I never heard of. I can give the doubt's benefit to Dr. Gates himself but not all these other folks,etc. I never heard of.

[Lugal]

On 1/18/2023 at 6:19 PM, Suzn said:

I was going to apply but I stopped at the need for a 2-3 minute video.  I just can't bring myself to do that, but I'd really like professional genealogical research help with my most frustrating brick wall.  I have tracked my great-great grandfather through the census years to 1900 where he, at 71, is living with his son and family and there he disappears as if abducted by aliens.  I've looked through miles of microfilm for an obit or death notice and walked through miles of cemeteries.  What adds to my frustration is that this very rural farming county is where I grew up.  Sigh...

Same here about the video.  Although what Blergh said about the fineprint and data sharing is a disincentive as well.  My brick wall is sort of the opposite of yours.  No one knows where my 3rd great-grandfather came from.  The story is he came from Connecticut and ran away from home due to a hated stepmother.  He did share a surname with a large family in CT, but DNA showed that he wasn't related to them.

[shapeshifter]

On second thought, there is a bit of an intriguing and unique story of the change of the family name in the 1850s in Russia that might by FYR-worthy.
The same name was adopted by various unrelated Jewish young men at that time and general area (perhaps including then-Austria).
The lore in my family says it was to prevent involuntary conscription in the Tsar's Army, which Googling says required 25 years of service and religious conversion (yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/military_service_in_russia).
So I'm imagining this common last name taken on by various young men has its own story beyond my family that could be of interest to a broader audience. 
Who manufactured the new identities? 
Was leaving home part of the deal? 
Why did all the new identities have the same last name?