W.D.Y.T.Y.A AUSTRALIA

[Currie]

Hello Trish,

It was a good show last night. I thought it was more enjoyable than the previous one. It’s amazing what interesting stories they can turn up.

I’m wondering whether they originally started off with a list of say 20 celebrities and threw out all the ones with absolutely mediocre and completely uninteresting ancestors.

Alan

[ninatoo]

I managed to remember to watch it and found it enjoyable.


Interesting point currie. I too wondered during the show if perhaps the producers do the research FIRST, before approaching the celebrities, to weed out the run of the mill trees with ordinary histories. Even on the British version, they always seem to have some noteworthy person in their trees, and that is just not the case in everyday genealogy is it?

Entertaining, nevertheless.

[karenmcc]

Yes,

I watched this one too, and was wondering the same thing as you lot. Perhaps they approached local genealogy societies and asked if any one in them had any interesting trees to share that linked up to modern day "stars".
Remember, Jack Thompson had the lady with the tree that was meters and meters long, and Kates had some guy who was related to her that had been researching the family tree for years.

I missed the first couple of minutes. Was there anything mentioned about her fathers side?

Karen

[ninatoo]

Not a thing!

[trish58]

Good Show

Oh how I yearn for my searches to be Oh so easy and simple, and all in the space of such a short time, Kate said at one point "in the 4 days" she had been searching .

Mine along with most of us have been going for years.

Good show anyway.

Trish

[Currie]

It would be handy if they did Sigrid Thornton’s story because there’s a family rumour going round that she’s related to my lot. Then there was the Rod Taylor rumour but I managed to bury that one. Then there was the one about what’s his name, some other celebrity.

According to the “grain of truth” theory there must be a celebrity there somewhere but it’s probably just someone’s wishful thinking.

Maybe next time,
Alan

[wini]

I watched as well.
I don't think they will ever do me.
Too many ag. labourers and Shoemakers.
All poor, so no fortune waiting to be claimed.
Wonder what they will come up with for Cathy Freeman?

Wini

[ninatoo]

I think they will probably go for her non-aboriginal side, since the aboriginal culture does not speak of their dead, nor look at photographs of the deceased etc. So if they followeded that route, it would be seen to be very disrespectful. Even so, I bet they will put a "Warning" message for the aboriginal community, just in case, because I don't see how you can not mention the deceased in such a program!

[wini]

You are right of course. It's difficult to have too many living ancestors.

wini

[trish1]

Hello Trish,

...

I’m wondering whether they originally started off with a list of say 20 celebrities and threw out all the ones with absolutely mediocre and completely uninteresting ancestors.

Alan

I believe from an interview/writeup I saw (probably in an ad for the program) they approached a number of folks & one of the factors was the "celebrity" had to be prepared to spend at least 3 weeks working on the program - so I think they definitely had a list, much larger than the final ones selected. I would also think the researchers checked some of the history, because the progams do need to be varied & cover many of the different types of ancestors who settled our country.

I have so many ag labs & similar in my family tree, yet I can find a connection (not necessarily a direct one) to a few folks who are well known in Australian History, so I think if they wanted someone, this is what they build the story around. The very tenuous relationship between Jack Thompson and Joseph Banks (a relative sold a copy of Bank's journal to the Mitchell library) is a good example of introducing a person noted in Australia's history, without a direct linage connection.

Trish