Who Do You Think You Are? - General Discussion

[Yeah No]

21 hours ago, iMonrey said:

In Allison Janney's case, the ancestor in question was her mother's mother's mother's father's father's mother's mother's father's mother's father's mother's father. I mean, that's a lot of jumping around to find someone interesting to talk about. Granted, I did think the story was pretty good, better than Nick Offerman's anyway. But it often feels like the celebrity is just a superfluous reactionary rather than the impetus of the story. 

Two things, just because they picked this story to talk about doesn't mean there wasn't anything else interesting to talk about in her family tree.  I have tons of interesting stories in mine but the show only chooses to focus on one.  I'm thinking they thought this story would captivate a lot of people so they went with it.

I descend from William Bradford and John Billington from the Mayflower, but I also descend from Thomas Lord, one of the original founders of Hartford, CT, plus one of his descendants who founded towns in Vermont and fought with Ethan Allen in the Revolutionary War.  I also descend from one of the "Old men of Menotomy", a group of about a dozen men who though older than the usual fighting age took up arms on April 19th, 1775, which is generally considered the first official day of the revolution.  They are considered heroes for having defeated a convoy bringing supplies to the British.  Any one of these stories would be more than interesting for a show like this to focus on, but they can only choose one.  Usually when people have roots to the Mayflower they are also related to a lot of other people instrumental in the colonial period and the revolutionary war.  The population was much smaller than today so there is a lot of interconnectedness in family trees. 

Also, I don't agree that they engaged in a lot of "jumping around".  If you are descended from someone you are descended from them, period.  It doesn't lack any validity for having to go from mother's side to father's side to make that connection.  There is a common misperception to only consider someone descended from someone if they share the same last name or it goes all down the mother's side.  But that's not how descendancy works.  She is just as descended from Hopkins as anyone that can trace their ancestry to him that just happens to have the name Hopkins.  

My descendancy from Thomas Lord, one of the founders of Hartford, is through my second great grandmother, Francis Lord.  It just happened that the name Lord stayed in the family until her because it was all down the male side.  But but being a woman she gave up that name when she got married to a Frenchman and took his name, then had a son, who also had that French surname who became father to my grandmother.  But that didn't mean my grandmother was any less a Lord just because her maiden name was French.

[Yeah No]

I do wish the show would focus more on the reaction of the star to learning these things.  I definitely feel that there is a little "damn rabid Yankee" in me and thanks to genealogy I feel like I know where it came from.  I saw it in my Dad too.  I never met his mother because she died before I was born but I am very sure she had it in her too based on what he told me.  These were people to admire.  It is very moving for me to learn these things and makes things about me make more sense.

[deirdra]

Did Allison descend from Constance? That might be why they didn't go into detail on wife #2 & her kids.   It appears that Jamestown and the Bermuda site were closed to the public when she visited - how cool it must have been to have the places to herself (+ period actors at Jamestown pretending to be working).  Very calming whereas crowded tourist attractions make it hard to focus on the ambience your ancestors would have felt.  People seeing this episode may boost post-Covid tourism.

While studying my own ancestry I've run into a couple of professional genealogists (both women) who only follow male lines.  Yes, the women may be harder to trace, but if you can trace them they tend to be the ones who write and keep the family history & letters. As each generation moved farther west in Canada, I was able to re-find key men in the family by following their sisters+husbands. Daughters were more likely to marry where their parents lived whereas their brothers were chasing gold rushes, etc., and some found wives along the way and married far away from home.

Edited July 26, 2022 by deirdra

[Sharpie66]

I just finished watching Allison’s ep, and that was riveting! I was on the edge of my seat during Peacock’s forced ad breaks.

I understand her thrill of finding that colonial connection. My dad’s mother’s tree has over 85% of the lines arriving in North America in the 1600s, and several of them came in the Great Migration before 1650. I can’t definitely prove that my 5th great grandmother Abigail Bradford was descended from William Bradford, so I had to delete the Mayflower from the tree (there is an Abigail born around the same time also in Rhode Island who is descended from him, but I can’t prove my Abigail is her). My New England lines were from 1630 and later, mostly in Maine, but the New York lines go back to my 12th great grandmother Christine de la Vigne, whose family was on one of the first two ships to arrive in Manhattan in early 1624.

The Maine lines have a few ancestors with detailed inventories with their wills, and those are fascinating reading!

And a family as deeply rooted in colonial America as Allison’s is sure to have multiple interesting stories to share. I accompanied Grandma’s tree with a Word doc of the stories I thought were of note, and so far, it has nearly 50 people on it. (One is my 5th great grandmother Ammedilla Turner, whom I included just for the great women’s names—Ammedilla, daughter of Freelove Tirell, granddaughter of Zerviah Canfield, sister of Zarababbel!)

[Sharpie66]

On 7/25/2022 at 12:22 AM, Chippings said:

I wonder how many of her ancestors they looked into before they got up to Stephen Hopkins -- a lot, probably.  A heck of a story to come up with, though.

It's always fun how the subjects always end up saying "I've been lucky to inherit my fortitude and determination &c from this brave ancestor" -- especially when the one they're talking about is this far back.  I keep a chart at my desk showing how much of your inheritance is from each great-grandparent at each level.  We each have four grandparents and the number gets larger very fast.  Each of our 11th great-grandparents is 1/8,192 of our input.  So at Stephen Hopkins' level she has 8,191 other 11th great-grandparents having an equal'influence' on her makeup.  

Great story, though, and a great find by the researchers..  And I have gotten to feeling kind of personal about ancestors at that level, so I'm not sneering at their feeling a connection   But the numbers are the numbers.  

The people at Ancestry are looking for that personal connection and specifically ask the subjects about it, much like Gates does on his show. I’ve mentioned this on that thread, but I’ve worked with them for a commercial and social media content about my great great grandmother and they asked that same personal connection question a few times, obviously looking for something they could use in the video or commercial.  I hated to disappoint them!

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Sharpie66 said:

(One is my 5th great grandmother Ammedilla Turner, whom I included just for the great women’s names—Ammedilla, daughter of Freelove Tirell, granddaughter of Zerviah Canfield, sister of Zarababbel!)

I'm guessing the name of Freelove had a different connotation in the 17th century than in the 20th, heh.

[Driad]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

I'm guessing the name of Freelove had a different connotation in the 17th century than in the 20th, heh.

You betcha.  In the 17th it was definitely religious. Parents who chose it might name their other children Silence, Obedience, etc.

[Blergh]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:01 PM, deirdra said:

Did Allison descend from Constance? That might be why they didn't go into detail on wife #2 & her kids.  

Yes, Miss Janney is a direct descendant of Constance Hopkins Snow (1606-1671)who was the child listed as one of the survivors of Stephen Hopkins's  wife Mary (and she was just six-year-old at the time of her mother's death in 1613).  Stephen was STILL in Virginia at that time but it was unclear who was caring for  Constance and her sib much less how long  after was it before he had returned.  It seems that, thanks to the sporadic transatlantic shipping, he'd only gotten notice of her death the next year in 1614(and, in fact, the 1st Mrs. Hopkins had believed herself to have been widowed at the time of her own death ).. Thankfully, Mr. Hopkins DID return to take care of his two young surviving children which, alas, not all men who'd emigrated to other lands did in those days. He did return to England and had married his 2nd wife Elizabeth (and sired two children with her) by the time he and his nuclear family had boarded the Mayflower in 1620 (when Constance was about thirteen).

Since Mr. Hopkins had nearly lost his life for his part in openly rebelling in Bermuda in 1609 against the appointed English Governor of Virginia (and only the other shipwreck survivors' pleas seemed to have spared him that), I have to wonder if he might have at least been among those who urged the Mayflower Compact to be written before anyone set foot in what's now Plymouth, Massachusetts? I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't want to chance any misunderstandings of who was governing their new land much less how it was to be governed since the previous misunderstanding had proved nearly fatal to him! BTW, it should be emphasized that it was against incredible odds that the ship that wrecked off the Bermuda coast had happened to have done so on a then completely unknown island which, unbeknown to them at the time, was one of the very few specks of land in the vast Atlantic Ocean between the English west coast's Scilly Isles and barrier islands off the coasts of Virginia and North Carolina!

Edited August 1, 2022 by Blergh

[DanaK]

Some heartbreaking stuff from tonight’s Zachary Levi episode, with ancestors and his mom being abusive. Yet he didn’t wallow in it, rather he wanted to use the info to make better choices for him and subsequent generations

[Notabug]

11 minutes ago, DanaK said:

Some heartbreaking stuff from tonight’s Zachary Levi episode, with ancestors and his mom being abusive. Yet he didn’t wallow in it, rather he wanted to use the info to make better choices for him and subsequent generations

I've got to applaud him and the show for going there and showing how alcoholism can affect generation after generation in a family.  His ggf or whoever it was who got the 16 yo pregnant, tried to abort her and then ran off with another woman to prevent the family from coming after him probably takes the cake on this show for terrible behavior.  No surprise that his marriage to the woman he ran off with was also marred by abuse and drinking on his part.

[shapeshifter]

34 minutes ago, Notabug said:

I've got to applaud him and the show for going there and showing how alcoholism can affect generation after generation in a family.  His ggf or whoever it was who got the 16 yo pregnant, tried to abort her and then ran off with another woman to prevent the family from coming after him probably takes the cake on this show for terrible behavior.  No surprise that his marriage to the woman he ran off with was also marred by abuse and drinking on his part.

I was a little disappointed in the show editing when Zachary didn't immediately figure out that the 15-year-old was pregnant and that his ancestor gave her an abortifacient. They said about 3 times that she was in a "delicate" condition and that he had given her something for it --I think maybe it was referred to as a questionable substance. 
They then showed Zachary Levi going to another town to look at the microfilm and read it again and then finally have it spelled out to him by the archivist. 

The Salem witch trial was better edited.

I missed parts of it because my own crazy family members kept calling, but I'm not likely to re-watch.

[DanaK]

The not in Salem witch accusation was really something, with the neighbors standing up for Zach’s ancestor and she was found not guilty. The implication was this was after the Salem Witch Trials that were a disaster and made this town maybe reconsider things

[buckboard]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

I was a little disappointed in the show editing when Zachary didn't immediately figure out that the 15-year-old was pregnant and that his ancestor gave her an abortifacient. They said about 3 times that she was in a "delicate" condition and that he had given her something for it --I think maybe it was referred to as a questionable substance. 
They then showed Zachary Levi going to another town to look at the microfilm and read it again and then finally have it spelled out to him by the archivist. 

I know, Shapeshifter, I couldn't believe how dense Zachary and his sister were when they read the newspaper article, not understanding what their ancestor had done.  The article used about five different euphemisms to explain that his gg grandfather had gotten a girl pregnant and then tried to induce an abortion.

It was interesting to find out that there were witch trials in a location other than Salem.  This link goes into detail about the accusation and trial:
https://www.ctgenweb.org/county/cofairfield/pages/stamford/witchcraft.htm

It was good to see his ancestry cover more generations than previous episodes this year had.  

[DanaK]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I was a little disappointed in the show editing when Zachary didn't immediately figure out that the 15-year-old was pregnant and that his ancestor gave her an abortifacient. They said about 3 times that she was in a "delicate" condition and that he had given her something for it --I think maybe it was referred to as a questionable substance. 
They then showed Zachary Levi going to another town to look at the microfilm and read it again and then finally have it spelled out to him by the archivist. 

The Salem witch trial was better edited.

I missed parts of it because my own crazy family members kept calling, but I'm not likely to re-watch.

To be honest, I didn’t figure it out either, at least the abortion part

Edited August 1, 2022 by DanaK

[Driad]

Whether someone understands "delicate condition," etc., may depend on age and/or experience. I did, but I'm older than Zachary and have read a lot of old newspaper articles. Maybe they were using his confusion to educate viewers, but they overdid it.

I like that this show has just one guest per episode, and that the guests go to places connected to their ancestry. I miss the consistent narrator of "Finding Your Roots" and the DNA results.

[Mermaid Under]

I had to Google Zachary Levi, and even after I did that I was still completely unfamiliar with him.  At least with Billy Porter I had seen pictures of him on the red carpet, even though I had no idea who he was or what he did.

Quote

\with ancestors and his mom being abusive. Yet he didn’t wallow in it, r

He didn't wallow in it, he actually seemed excited by it.  His reactions to the information he was presented seemed odd to me at times.  
I missed any mention of his Mom being abusive, but since he mentioned alcoholism and abuse in her ancestors more times than I could count, I kind of picked up on it.   He also mentioned his father being religious in a way that didn't sound particularly admirable.  

Quote

Maybe they were using his confusion to educate viewers, but they overdid it.

I picked up on it the first time through.  Having to beat him over the head with it made him seem stupid.  Prior to this, I've only heard the word abortifacient used in anti-abortion literature.  If this 15 year old had a baby, and if the baby didn't die from neglect because it was illegitimate, maybe there are some relatives out there that Cece Moore could have found with genetic genealogy.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Mermaid Under

[Lovecat]

11 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I was a little disappointed in the show editing when Zachary didn't immediately figure out that the 15-year-old was pregnant and that his ancestor gave her an abortifacient. They said about 3 times that she was in a "delicate" condition and that he had given her something for it --I think maybe it was referred to as a questionable substance. 
They then showed Zachary Levi going to another town to look at the microfilm and read it again and then finally have it spelled out to him by the archivist. 

9 hours ago, buckboard said:

I know, Shapeshifter, I couldn't believe how dense Zachary and his sister were when they read the newspaper article, not understanding what their ancestor had done.  The article used about five different euphemisms to explain that his gg grandfather had gotten a girl pregnant and then tried to induce an abortion.

It was like Chris O'Donnell at Fort McHenry all over again...standing under a giant American flag and wondering aloud "Did something...important happen here??"

19 minutes ago, Mermaid Under said:

If this 15 year old had a baby, and if the baby didn't die from neglect because it was illegitimate, maybe there are some relatives out there that Cece Moore could have found with genetic genealogy.

My husband said the same thing!  Zachary Levi might have a whole other branch of his family tree to explore.

[shapeshifter]

53 minutes ago, Mermaid Under said:

I had to Google Zachary Levi, and even after I did that I was still completely unfamiliar with him. 

I knew him from 2 shows I watched, but I just assumed they explained who he was during the first 7 minutes that I missed futzing around with my access to the show. But no, eh/huh?
Does this show usually introduce the celebrity to the viewers?

 

53 minutes ago, Mermaid Under said:

If this 15 year old had a baby, and if the baby didn't die from neglect because it was illegitimate, maybe there are some relatives out there that Cece Moore could have found with genetic genealogy.

I thought maybe I missed them saying she did lose the baby (when I got a phone call I should not have answered for family reasons) because I too wondered: Wait. What? Does Zachary Levi have a family of half siblings of his grands? 

Maybe this show's editors aren't used to having a subject with more than one fascinating story?

 

53 minutes ago, Mermaid Under said:

Prior to this, I've only heard the word abortifacient used in anti-abortion literature. 

Did your limited prior exposure to the term make you think they were being judgmental? Or did it just seem like an odd word choice? 
I became familiar with the term "abortifacient" in the 1970s reading books about herbs.
Did any of you here think it needed defining on the show?
Or was the root word sufficient? 

Edited August 1, 2022 by shapeshifter

[Mermaid Under]

Quote

Or did it just seem like an odd word choice? 

Prior to this, as I said, I had only one context for this word, and because of that I questioned whether it was an actual, real, scientific word, or something made up by the folks who who had a  specific agenda.  

[iMonrey]

Love Zachary Levi, Chuck is one of my all-time favorite shows. I thought it was admirable of him to be so open about his family's history of addiction and abuse. I was much more moved by the stories about his maternal lineage, it felt relevant and connected to him in a much more personal way. The story about the 10x ancestor accused of witchcraft seemed too removed and detached. I do like it when they focus on more than one story, though.

Quote

Does this show usually introduce the celebrity to the viewers?

They did, there was the usual bio at the top of the episode.

Quote

He also mentioned his father being religious in a way that didn't sound particularly admirable.  

Levi himself is a person of faith, he has been quite open about it. However, they avoided mentioning what kind of relationship he currently has with his father. Interesting to note he does not use his father's last name and he made no mention of discussing his findings with his father.

[Sharpie66]

Wow, this latest episode had me making even more connections to his family past, just like the two earlier episodes.

My third great grandmother Antoinette “Nettie” Crispell Carson divorced my third great grandfather John Carson in 1887 for drunkenness and cruelty. I hope for my great grandmother Alida’s sake that their son Julius didn’t inherit those traits, but I am not disposed to think well of him. (Zachary is better than me for his willingness to forgive his ancestors.) After his wife died of appendicitis at age 31 when they had five children, Julius sent the three eldest girls to live with his in-laws, took the youngest girl with him when he moved hundreds of miles away from the rest of his children to live near his father, and when no one was willing to take in his only son (including himself), he put the 8 year old boy Bill into a Chicago orphanage. Alida never talked about her parents to her daughters, and I found after connecting with Bill’s granddaughter through a genealogy website, that he never forgave his father, bricking up all of his family photos behind his fireplace wall so he would never have to see his father’s face again. He told his kids that he would someday love to pay someone $10 to research his family tree, then pay them $50 to burn it all. (Bill lied about his age to join the navy and got out of the orphanage when he was just 14.)

That cycle does seem to have been broken with Alida and Bill’s generation, though, at least with their children and descendants.

Then, the show went to Connecticut and followed witchcraft, and my family has connections there, too! First, what the genealogist said about Stamford having the only other witchcraft accusations outside of Salem wasn’t correct. One of my 10th great grandfathers Hugh Rowe in Gloucester, MA, had several daughters and daughters-in-law accused in 1692 and some were tossed into jail to await trial. But, it appears to have been a political move against Hugh, because none of them ever went to court and they were released after several weeks. The other connection was that the 1692 Connecticut case was not the first witchcraft trial in that area. Another 10th great grandfather Thomas Bassett is believed to have had a first wife only known in the records as Goody (short for Goodwife) Bassett who was executed in 1651 in Stamford for being a witch. He remarried several years later to a young widow and had a son who is my ancestor. But, Goody Bassett is still remembered in Stamford for supposed hauntings as well as a local ice cream parlor that is named after her. I sort of hoped that the show would have ended with Zachary getting a cone there, but that would have been too lighthearted for such a potentially tragic story.

[buckboard]

6 hours ago, Mermaid Under said:

Prior to this, as I said, I had only one context for this word, and because of that I questioned whether it was an actual, real, scientific word, or something made up by the folks who who had a  specific agenda.  

Google is our friend.  So much is left out of these episodes, that when I have a question, I'll check it out for myself with a simple search.  (I guess it's the librarian in my blood.)

When I wanted to learn more than the show told us about the witch trials in Connecticut, I searched on Google.  (See link to long article in my previous post.)

[deirdra]

I wonder if any female suspected witches ever sank?  Women have higher body fat % than men, so it is hard not to float. Though a scrawny woman might sink - though they can look more witch-like. The anti-witch laws just sounded like a way to get rid of people that annoy you, by hanging (floats) or drowning (sinks).  I cannot imagine people rushing to save a drowning witch because she might rise up and float. There is even a Zappa song about a ship arriving too late to save a drowning witch.

Edited August 2, 2022 by deirdra

[shapeshifter]

32 minutes ago, deirdra said:

Though a scrawny woman might sink - though they can look more witch-like.

Actually, those of us scrawny, older women who have had several children float exceptionally well due to osteoporosis.

I recall reading that one reason to accuse a woman of being a witch was to prevent an inheritance from going to her. 
Considering the physics of osteoporosis (a metamorphosis which I regularly observe in my own body while swimming) I suppose the more children a woman has, the greater the odds that, perhaps, either a son or a daughter-in-law might accuse their scrawny, unsinkable, recently widowed relative of being a witch for reasons of financial gain.

[Driad]

Someone might accuse a cranky or nosy neighbor of witchcraft to get rid of her.

As for inheritance, at least in some parts of New England, when a married man died, one of the sons would get the house and had to let his mother (the widow) live there. She would not own the property, but she could prevent her son from selling it. If the son wanted to sell and move, this could create tension within the family. I don't know whether this ever led to an accusation of witchcraft, but ...

[Yeah No]

14 hours ago, Mermaid Under said:

He didn't wallow in it, he actually seemed excited by it.  His reactions to the information he was presented seemed odd to me at times.  
I missed any mention of his Mom being abusive, but since he mentioned alcoholism and abuse in her ancestors more times than I could count, I kind of picked up on it.   He also mentioned his father being religious in a way that didn't sound particularly admirable.  

I picked up on it the first time through.  Having to beat him over the head with it made him seem stupid.  Prior to this, I've only heard the word abortifacient used in anti-abortion literature.  If this 15 year old had a baby, and if the baby didn't die from neglect because it was illegitimate, maybe there are some relatives out there that Cece Moore could have found with genetic genealogy.

I felt the same way about Zachary Levi.  His reactions often seemed odd to me as well.  He did describe himself as somewhat of a geek so I'm figuring there's some social awkwardness going on there in spite of his generally outgoing personality.  That may also explain the denseness re: the "delicate condition" and "questionable medicine".  Also, I cringed when he said "his generation" was all about righting the intergenerational wrongs.  The genealogist gave him a strange look when he said that.  

I learned something new, though.  I never knew about the connection to witch trials in Stamford, despite working there for 4 years in the '90s, living in the state and having CT ancestry going waaay back.  Or it might have been the kind of thing someone mentioned offhand at a party and I never followed up on it.

[iMonrey]

Did they say why his ancestor was accused of witchcraft? Was she supposed to have killed the neighbor's cows or something? I don't recall hearing a reason.

[deirdra]

12 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Did they say why his ancestor was accused of witchcraft? Was she supposed to have killed the neighbor's cows or something? I don't recall hearing a reason.

I didn't hear a reason either, nor can I find a reason online.  "Why" is a more interesting question, like the case on his paternal side where the abusive soldier wanted to prevent his discarded wife from getting half his pension, but they found out why she got it.  I was kind of hoping the judge would also make him pay her for child support for the past years with no support from dad.

[buckboard]

12 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Did they say why his ancestor was accused of witchcraft? Was she supposed to have killed the neighbor's cows or something? I don't recall hearing a reason.

If you want to know about why she was accused of witchcraft, here is another article about the trial that is a bit shorter to read than the other one I posted above:

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Haunted-Stamford-1692-witch-trial-4941025.php

Edited August 3, 2022 by buckboard

[Mermaid Under]

Quote

If you want to know about why she was accused of witchcraft, here is another article about the trial that is a bit shorter to read than the other one I posted above:

In reading the shorter article, the only thing that was notable to me was that Clawson's accuser was a (female) servant.  I wonder if this would have ended differently had the accuser been a wealthy, (male) land owner.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Mermaid Under

[deirdra]

18 hours ago, buckboard said:

If you want to know about why she was accused of witchcraft, here is another article about the trial that is a bit shorter to read than the other one I posted above:

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Haunted-Stamford-1692-witch-trial-4941025.php

Thanks! It sounds like the servant may have been the witch in the story if cats were speaking to HER!  She accused multiple people of being witches, but she was the common denominator.

Edited August 3, 2022 by deirdra

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, deirdra said:

It sounds like the servant may have been the witch in the story if cats were speaking to HER!  She accused multiple people of being witches, but she was the common denominator.

This text suggests Katherine Branch, the indentured servant girl, suffered from epilepsy:

• "In his home lived a seventeen-year-old, French, bound servant named Katherine Branch. From his depositions it is obvious that the girl suffered from some type of seizure, possibly epilepsy.
  • '. ..when she was in those fits rattling in her throat she would put out her tong to a great extent I conceive beyond nature & I put her tong into her mouth again & then I looked in her mouth & could se no tong but as if it were a lump of flesh down her throat and this of ten times.'
• "She was perhaps ridden by fear of losing her secure position in a prosperous home if the true nature of her affliction became known, but the attacks could not be hidden."
  https://www.ctgenweb.org/county/cofairfield/pages/stamford/accusation.htm

As was typical of the witch hysteria, a person thought to be a witch hoped someone else could be blamed so they did not suffer the consequences themselves. 
I haven't read the rest of the text (it begins here), but it does sound like epilepsy, which would not be relieved in 1692, unless, perhaps by some potent herbs.
So I wonder if at the time of Zachary Levi's ancestor, if the community recognized that the servant Katherine was in the habit of blaming her affliction on various people, and that after they were put to death, she was still afflicted. Perhaps Steven Clawson was able to get all those 70+ signatures because the people recognized any one of them could be next. Perhaps he pointed this out.

I wonder if it was Elizabeth Clawson's idea for her husband to get a petition signed.
 

Slightly OT:
The term "witch hunt" is bandied about a lot these days, but now that I'm reading about the origins of the term, I don't think it means quite the same anymore. 
Sort of like the way Westerners use the term "karma" with a very vague understanding of its original meaning.

[shapeshifter]

On 8/3/2022 at 7:58 AM, Mermaid Under said:

In reading the shorter article, the only thing that was notable to me was that Clawson's accuser was a (female) servant.  I wonder if this would have ended differently had the accuser been a wealthy, (male) land owner.

I imagine a servant girl who suffered from epilepsy would be open to the idea that her affliction was caused by a witch.
Perhaps her mistress or master gave her the idea that Zachary Levy's ancestor was a witch.
Or, as the servant, her duties probably included making the family's bread, and so she may have been exposed to more rye mold (ergot) than her master and his family, which could also cause "spasms" (uh.edu/engines/epi1037.htm).
The master and/or mistress may have worried that they themselves would be accused of being witches amidst accounts of their servant having "fits."

I have not completely read all of the linked documents.
Has anyone who read them noticed whether the master and/or mistress of the servant girl were identified?
If so, can you tell whether not they signed the document that ultimately freed Zachary Levy's ancestor, Elizabeth Clawson?

Edited August 5, 2022 by shapeshifter

[Blergh]

On 8/1/2022 at 10:57 PM, Yeah No said:

I felt the same way about Zachary Levi.  His reactions often seemed odd to me as well.  He did describe himself as somewhat of a geek so I'm figuring there's some social awkwardness going on there in spite of his generally outgoing personality.  That may also explain the denseness re: the "delicate condition" and "questionable medicine".  Also, I cringed when he said "his generation" was all about righting the intergenerational wrongs.  The genealogist gave him a strange look when he said that.  

I learned something new, though.  I never knew about the connection to witch trials in Stamford, despite working there for 4 years in the '90s, living in the state and having CT ancestry going waaay back.  Or it might have been the kind of thing someone mentioned offhand at a party and I never followed up on it.

At ;east Mr. Levi WAS appalled and disgusted that his distant ancestress had been accused of witchcraft and sympathized with her ordeal the deliberate drowning attempt including before her husband was able to help get the ball rolling to have her acquitted and freed (despite the very real risks to his own freedom and life).

I haven't forgotten how Neil Patrick Harris on Finding Your Roots actually LAUGHED at the news that his own ancestress had had this happen and had been BURNED at the stake as a witch despite the rather discomfited Dr. Gates trying to spell out to Mr. Harris the gravity of the situation. Seriously, Mr. Harris reacted as though he'd just seen his detention teacher get a pie in the face!

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

I haven't forgotten how Neil Patrick Harris on Finding Your Roots actually LAUGHED at the news that his own ancestress had had this happen and had been BURNED at the stake as a witch despite the rather discomfited Dr. Gates trying to spell out to Mr. Harris the gravity of the situation. Seriously, Mr. Harris reacted as though he'd just seen his detention teacher get a pie in the face!

I interpreted Neil Patrick Harris's reactions in this clip to discovering of his ancestor's part in a witch trial a little differently.
I think he initially laughs in surprise before he learns that she was convicted and burned at the stake.
But I've only seen this clip:

[Mermaid Under]

I didn't have to Google Bradley Whitford.  

If we have pretty much decided that the lack of a "host" guiding the story means that this show is more scripted, I'll at least say the Bradley Whitford was one of the best actors they've had on since the return.  He made the whole thing seem almost natural.  That final drone cemetery shot was a bit overly dramatic, but it worked.

And I can already say that I know next week's guest, Zachary Quinto.  Not because I've seen anything he did, but because Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory accidently bought a life size cardboard cut out of the "new" Spock, when he really wanted Leonard Nimoy.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Mermaid Under
next week's episode guest

[iMonrey]

Bradley Whitford's episode felt more like a history lesson than anything else. A big chunk of it was a tour guide describing a civil war battle. I get that they were trying to tie Whitford's political activism to his ancestor's but this felt mostly disconnected from him. I find civil war history mostly a snooze. It's why I could never get interested in history in school, it's all the battle of such and such and the battle of so and so. Just doesn't interest me. I have a great-great-great grandfather who died in the civil war and it still doesn't interest me.

Also, I can never remember Bradley Whitford's name correctly, I always want to say Whitford Bradley or Bradford Whitley. 

[Grizzly]

I'm surprised that Bradley Whitford is only 3 generations from the Civil War. History class always made the War sound so far away.

[deirdra]

10 minutes ago, Grizzly said:

I'm surprised that Bradley Whitford is only 3 generations from the Civil War. History class always made the War sound so far away.

Sometimes they count "third great grandfather" to just count grandfathers, not including the father.

[shapeshifter]

36 minutes ago, Grizzly said:

I'm surprised that Bradley Whitford is only 3 generations from the Civil War. History class always made the War sound so far away.

23 minutes ago, deirdra said:

Sometimes they count "third great grandfather" to just count grandfathers, not including the father.

Also:

• He said he and his older brother were born much later than his other siblings. Both his parents were 44 when he was born in 1959, at which time many 44-year-olds were already grandparents.
   
• Before "modern medicine," many husbands outlived their wives, who died in childbirth. The husbands then remarried and had more children when these paternal ancestors were even older than 44. I didn't follow the episode carefully enough to determine if this was the case with any of BW's ancestors.

[Driad]

The length of a generation can vary a lot.  One of my ancestors was in the Civil War, and his father was in the Revolutionary War.  The father was in his 60s when the son was born.

[buckboard]

This isn't particular to any episode, but I am amazed that archivists allow the celebrities to handle documents that are hundreds of years old, without wearing gloves.  On occasions when I have worked with very old books, staff have insisted on wearing gloves to protect the delicate paper.

[shapeshifter]

10 minutes ago, buckboard said:

This isn't particular to any episode, but I am amazed that archivists allow the celebrities to handle documents that are hundreds of years old, without wearing gloves.  On occasions when I have worked with very old books, staff have insisted on wearing gloves to protect the delicate paper.

Yes. Thanks for mentioning this.
I've been cringing.
For 25 years I worked in libraries that had separate archives.
When watching this show, I keep telling myself that the documents we see handled are replicas of the originals.
Still, they appear to be suggesting that they are originals.
Not only is it disingenuous to suggest that the featured descendants get to handle the original documents,
and not only does it set a bad example for viewers who might have such fragile, rare documents in their own attics,
but it seems to devalue these documents for the viewers.
I don't get it. 🤷‍♀️

[Shannon L.]

Jumping out of lurking for a minute.  I thought I read somewhere that gloves aren't necessary when handling old documents, just make sure that your hands are clean and dry.  I googled it and found this (and several other sources):

The White Glove Myth

But it's not only that you do not need white gloves when handling old documents or book.  You should not wear them.  The problem with the white glove myth is that it fights against the very thing it is supposed to ensure - the safety of the historical treasure.  Would you find it easier to read a book wearing white cloth gloves?  It removes any dexterity required when handling older paper.  You are more likely to rip the document or bend it while wearing gloves of any sort. Moreover, white gloves are more likely to sop up sweat and other oils that can then be transferred to the document.  And the small fibers can be left behind and filed away with the document.

I love this show.  I don't comment often because I'm a bit intimidated by amount of history knowledge you all have.  I hated history--I had the most boring teachers--so I zoned out a lot (until 11th grade, when I got a cool, fun teacher, who was cute, too ;)  Now that I'm older, I'm much more interested in our history and being able to get the basics from a source like this show is much more fun than just reading it online. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Shannon L.

[chitowngirl]

On 8/8/2022 at 4:43 PM, Driad said:

The length of a generation can vary a lot.  One of my ancestors was in the Civil War, and his father was in the Revolutionary War.  The father was in his 60s when the son was born.

To tack on to this-my favorite fun fact: 10th President Zachary Tyler (President 1841-1845, before the Civil War) has a living grandson!

Edited August 9, 2022 by chitowngirl

[deirdra]

3 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I love this show.  I don't comment often because I'm a bit intimidated by amount of history knowledge you all have.  I hated history--I had the most boring teachers--so I zoned out a lot (until 11th grade, when I got a cool, fun teacher, who was cute, too ;)  Now that I'm older, I'm much more interested in our history and being able to get the basics from a source like this show is much more fun than just reading it online. 

We had to memorize dates of battles, when WHY they were battling would have been more interesting, and knowing what one's ancestors were doing at the same time puts it into perspective, even if you are learning about these ancestors for the first time.

[Grrarrggh]

13 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Bradley Whitford's episode felt more like a history lesson than anything else. A big chunk of it was a tour guide describing a civil war battle. I get that they were trying to tie Whitford's political activism to his ancestor's but this felt mostly disconnected from him. I find civil war history mostly a snooze. It's why I could never get interested in history in school, it's all the battle of such and such and the battle of so and so. Just doesn't interest me. I have a great-great-great grandfather who died in the civil war and it still doesn't interest me.

You had crappy history teachers. History is the subject that ties every other subject together and most effects human kind. In the end it is the study of people. 

[shapeshifter]

8 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

You had crappy history teachers. History is the subject that ties every other subject together and most effects human kind. In the end it is the study of people. 

I had some great history teachers, but memorizing dates and names and places is not my strong suit.
And I did zone out during some of the Civil War battle stuff in this episode.
Maybe I'll rewatch some time to catch those parts?
IDK. Bradley Whitford  seems like a good guy, and a talented guy, but this episode was a little saccharine? 
Too many tearful "I hope he makes it out" "I hope they make it" ". . . and Valentine," when they all died a really really long time ago. 

I keep thinking that the the brother who had 8 or 9 kids maybe did that so if his sons went to war, there'd be better odds of not all of them dying. But people had big families then, so I can see why they couldn't speculate about that beyond Bradley stating that they must've had PTSD from the experiences on the battlefields. It is pretty amazing that he survived to be successful and respected as a good human, considering the war experience. That doesn't typically happen. But those who do survive with their sanity in tact were probably pretty special to begin with? 

Edited August 9, 2022 by shapeshifter

[Shannon L.]

8 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

You had crappy history teachers. History is the subject that ties every other subject together and most effects human kind. In the end it is the study of people. 

The teacher makes all the difference.  My daughter had great teachers and she knew more than I did and understood the implications of certain historical events more than I did.  I loved getting into conversations with her because it made me happy that she was getting it.

8 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I keep thinking that the the brother who had 8 or 9 kids maybe did that so if his sons went to war, there'd be better odds of not all of them dying. But people had big families then, so I can see why they couldn't speculate about that beyond Bradley stating that they must've had PTSD from the experiences on the battlefields. It is pretty amazing that he survived to be successful and respected as a good human, considering the war experience. That doesn't typically happen. But those who do survive with their sanity in tact were probably pretty special to begin with? 

I don't think it was uncommon for farmers, especially, to have large families because once the kids got to a certain age, they could help with chores.

[Mermaid Under]

Quote

I keep thinking that the the brother who had 8 or 9 kids maybe did that so if his sons went to war, there'd be better odds of not all of them dying.

Frederic Neu's obituary said that he had 9 children, and that some of them survive.  It didn't say how many, and it didn't name them.  You didn't need a war or an epidemic; infant and child mortality was really high, right through the early 20th century.  It was just assumed that you would have children who didn't survive.