Who Do You Think You Are? (2004– ) User Reviews (11)

Series 19

[martimusross · 7/10 · 12 July 2022]

Who Do You Think You Are

Series 19

Sue Perkins was distractingly frenetic from the get go but as she got out and about as the history unfolded there was quite an emotional rollercoaster for everyone. The parallels of an interment camp and Nazis resettlement camp were marked and it was shocking to enter the Nazis programme of eugenics and aryan genetics.

This was a brilliant show and we learned much about the history. Sue wears her heart on a sleeve and we feel her pain in a visceral way. I'm giving this show a 10 outta 10 I was gripped.

Richard Osman, quite a national treasure, we learn that when his father walked out when he was 9 for another woman his mother cut off all relations with his side of the family, perhaps to the detriment of Richard's childhood. The show necessarily focuses on only his mothers side, which is only a partial story. Richard's grandfather clearly stepped up to be the male role model in his life much to his credit and his story was most poignant. 8 outta 10 from me, so much was missing!

Matt Lucas, I'm not sure why this show moved at a snails pace but it was bordering on stop. Matt led us through a terrible history of fleeing the Nazis and concentration camps were very few survived. It was awful and he held it together. It wasn't historically the best of shows so for me it was a 6 outta 10, we must never forget.

Anna Maxwell Martin, you had to laugh before any of the history was revealed Anna proclaimed everything about everyone and then was shown to have got it all wrong. Her need to embellish a back story was beyond irritating, however she got her comeuppance when her grandfather's was way beyond anything she could imagine. She remained fixated that people learn all their parenting off their parents, negating the influences of friends, neighbours, other relatives and a world full of professionals. Overall it was not very interesting history at best a 5 outta 10.

Ralf Little, great show and very interesting history, I'm giving this a 10 outta 10.

Phenomenal

[teamwak · 10/10 · 5 October 2007]

I cannot praise this show enough. It is a rare treat to see a celebrity do a piece without ego, but this show is heartfelt, funny, and moving in equal measures.

Some of the celebrity's are shocked by the revelations in their past. Stephen Fry finds himself in Aushwitz, Natasha Kaplinsky finds a Jewish massacre in Belarus, and Barbara Windsors family went through debtor jail.

Alistair Mcgowan finds himself in India, and John Hurt doesn't find himself in Ireland. And Nigella Lawson, Jeremy Clarkson, and Jane Horrocks find themselves related to Industrialists.

Fantastic and throughly engrossing series. 10/10.

Second series even better

[Cbak · 26 January 2006]

The second series has been running for a few weeks. The series opened with Jeremy Paxman (for those who don't know him, he's very well known in Britain as the most hard-nosed, cynical, bullying, political interview around). He was most humbled by his family's less than spectacular background.

I am posting now because last night's show featured Stephen Fry (a highly intellectual speaker, presenter and comedian). He uncovered ancestors on his father's side who were in prison or a poorhouse, and probably dies of TB. Worse, he proved that some relatives on his mother's side had been murdered in Auschwitz, and that the only evidence of his family in Surany (now in Slovakia) is an old headstone in an often vandalised Jewish cemetery. This town was once a thriving Jewish community, but now has just one Jew, a remarkably upbeat old man.

Stephen Fry found a plaque an the wall outside a block of flats in Austria, which mentioned the names of former residents taken to Auschwitz. The plaque mentioned the names of members of Fry's family. This plaque, the run down cemetery, the discovery that his relatives had died in Auschwitz, and a letter written by the old man still living in Surany, all moved Stephen Fry (and me) to tears.

This was a brilliant programme.

love it

[stripysocksrock · 10/10 · 30 October 2009]

I have a fascination for history, particularly social history and I always find this show fascinating. They have done a huge range of people and the amount of work which must go into each show is staggering. I think it's a very engaging and human way to learn about history.

I'd just like to refer to one of the other posters on here and say that these people are generally not employees of the BBC so their political leanings are of no import. There is a long tradition of creative types who lean a little to the left, so I'm not sure why that comes as a shock, and a large number of the subjects (actors or otherwise) of this series are far from uneducated. I think what may have got lost in translation is exactly who some of the individuals in earlier series are. And perhaps their sense of humour. A large number of these people are well-known in the UK but perhaps not elsewhere. I believe that this has been picked up in other countries now as well and made with more relevant subjects.

One of the reasons I think it's so interesting in the UK is that it highlights how mixed the people living here are.

Fascinating family histories

[Wildflowers1245 · 10/10 · 3 September 2012]

This is a fascinating series on the genealogy of famous people. I love the way these stories unfold layer by layer to reveal the drama that is humanity from the great wars, massive migrations, and religious persecution to stories of everyday life. Birth, census, marriage, property, court and death records provide factual information of those that came before us and are woven with general historical information that is known about the time period to bring to life ancestors who were not previously known. These stories are often poignant and emotional as we come to know personal struggles. They educate us today of the way life used to be; where young children often died from diseases that today are easily prevented, where prejudice was accepted as the norm and a lack of social safety nets led to destitution. It reminds us how far we have come. How medical advances such as vaccinations and contraception have improved lives by saving children from horrible diseases and helping families plan the size of families in order to better support them. For all that is wrong with media today, it can put a spotlight on abuses and human suffering which lead to social change today. It brings to mind that great quotation attributed to George Santayana and repeated by Winston Churchill "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The BBC series is much better than the American version and it is telling that in the States it is referred to as a "reality show" where in the UK it is documentary. I rated the US version an 8 out of 10 for it's scripted feel and it's blatant commercial for Ancestry.com. I rate the UK version a 10 out of 10 for its more in depth analysis.

A massive television achievement - compelling and informative fare that should (at the very least) be compulsory family watching

[jrarichards · 10/10 · 28 November 2015]

We always knew that history was as much about ordinary people as about "the great and good", and the increased accessibility of British genealogical records has come to mean that everyone can check (and can afford to check) their family history in hours or days now, as opposed to the months or years it used to take. Genealogists of this new, far-wider category will be intimately aware how - as we go forward towards the middle of the 21st century, we are also - every last one of us - able to delve back in time to "create new history" - a particularly paradoxical and stunning reality of our times. A British format copied around the world (wherever records permit), "Who do you think you are?" has been both a product of the increased interest in genealogy and family history in the UK, and a major motor force behind the further development of this hobby-cum-obsession. Most people "want to know" - about who they are and where they came from, and the various celebrities that appear on the programme are mostly sufficiently interesting and sympathetic (in these most fundamental of circumstances at least) for us to care about their backgrounds. Indeed, it is virtually a rule that the family-history context portrays just about everybody in a positive/sympathetic light (even certain celebs one might otherwise have reservations about). We can't help our ancestors, we have to take the rough with the smooth, but we are a living part of that past heritage, while our ancestors are part of us - and in some ways this is a great leveller and a great conveyor of what it means to be human, and to feel human sympathy for somebody else. Hence emotion is never far below the surface in episodes of "Who do you think you are?", and this is a powerful incentive encouraging us to watch on. At the same time, we are given bite-size, but extremely helpful, incisive and skilfully abbreviated aspects of British (and therefore often also world) history, which makes cumulative watching of the series a vastly educational and also enfranchising experience, without it ever assuming a hectoring or lecturing or patronising tone. A great plus in this respect is the simultaneously warm and authoritative tone adopted by programme narrators David Morrissey, Mark Strong and Cherie Lunghi. While the featured celebrities do quite a lot of the talking/presenting themselves - alongside a vast pantheon of invited/consulted experts from every conceivable field, the very significant contribution to the overall product that the narrators make is not to be denied, and the potential educational impact of the programme is virtually limitless. This reflects the fact that it is mostly the history of society and of ordinary people that is highlighted - albeit firmly in the context of national or global trends and world events. Which shapes which is an interesting philosophical question, extremely well explored in what are now (as of 2015) no fewer than 12 series of this magnificent programme. Somewhere down the line, there is also a gently patriotic thread in there - but done with huge subtlety, indeed perhaps purely spontaneously, given that the United Kingdom HAS kept (most of) its people (and many incomers) safe for centuries, and HAS given them at least some chances to better themselves, as the series cannot help but show. There is no obvious reason why this format should ever run out of steam, given the fact that people and their background cannot fail to interest us as human beings, and given that there will always be new stories from history to be uncovered and told, as ostensibly dry documents are brought to vibrant life as stories from history in what is a synergistic and powerful combination of celebrities, talking heads, narrators, beautiful and often stunning or poignant visual images and sensitive music. There is a seamless whole here that is something rather unique in TV history. It would be so easy to distort or unbalance it, but so far the makers have managed to avoid that - and every possible credit to them for the landmark achievement.

Has gone down hill

[Impman2 · 1/10 · 11 November 2021]

Used to be excellent viewing.

Sadly in the past few years it has become increasingly biased (but then it is made by the BBC). Everything about Britain's past is portrayed as bad. Everyone suffered. No one was happy.

It's as if BBC employees hate their own country and want to constantly put it down.

Excellent documentary series from the BBC

[chris_gaskin123 · 23 February 2005]

Who Do you Think You Are? is one of the better documentary series's that the BBC have made recently. I watched most episodes.

It is about ten celebrities who trace their ancestors from many years ago. This takes them around the UK and around the world too. We learn quite a lot through watching this and we also get to see different places.

Some of the celebrities taking us on this journey include newsreader Moira Stuart, comedian and ornithologist Bill Oddie, Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson, singer Lesley Garrett and actress Sue Johnston.

This was screened on BBC2 between 9 and 10pm on Tuesdays. I think it would have attracted more viewers if it had been on BBC1.

Very enjoyable.

Respect the privacy of the dead

[ginaballcute-280-338261 · 2/10 · 31 January 2012]

Respect the privacy of the dead

This show talks about the private lives of generations of relatives. The show I watched yesterday in Australia about a woman who dug up the 3 marriage contracts of her great great grandfather just to be able to say and chuckle that "he was married 3 times" raises the issue about the privacy of the dead.

At present time, NSW laws do not allow people who are not party to the marriage to get copies of marriage certificates. But if they are 30 years old, anyone, not even those related to them can. There is here a certain irony.

Likewise from a certain ethical point of view, just because they are dead doesn't mean you can do whatever you like just because you can. If they were living, do you think those people would have allowed very distant relatives to pry into their lives, let alone dig up and get copies of their marriage contracts? Put yourself in the place of the dead. See how it goes.

Furthermore, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides "Article 17 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation."

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. "

Likewise, the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data provides that "although national laws and policies may differ, Member countries have a common interest in protecting privacy and individual liberties, and in reconciling fundamental but competing values such as privacy and the free flow of information; ".

Sometimes its not what we want to do with other people's lives but its what they would have wanted had they been alive

Really Interesting!

[welshgirl1992 · 16 October 2006]

I'm watching the second series of "Who Do you think you are?" and am so interested!

All the personal history of the celebrity is interesting but they (the narrator,Mark Strong) gives you the general history of whatever they are talking about and me being a history lover find these parts really interesting.

It also helps people with their family trees (like me) don't bother with the website they give you its useless!

The person who said it should be on BBC1 was right but now it is!

I hope they carry on after this second series!

"Who do I think I am? I am a Socialist actor in search of Irish ancestry."

[fedor8 · 23 August 2009]

"I've never cared about my ancestors, but now that TV is involved I'll be more than happy to investigate it." And pretend that you're emotionally involved in what happened to some people you never met, 150 years ago.

Having seen more than a dozen episodes, I've noticed two things about the human subjects:

1) 80% of them hope to find Irish ancestry in their family tree. Whether it be Jeremy Irons or John Hurt - or any other self-deluded, gullible thespian - the quest for negating one's own "englishness" through the process of digging out even a minute trace of Irishness: this takes precedence over everything else.

Hurt was absolutely crushed (well... hurt) when he eventually found out that there wasn't an iota of Irish blood in his small Elephant Man body. He had spent his life boasting about an alleged connection to Irish nobility, as if being connected to any branch of any in-bred species of royalty were something to brag about. But it turned out to be a fantasy tale. Now John has to go through the remainder of his life knowing that he is "merely" English... What the hell is wrong with being English? Is it "unhip" due to the fact that the English were always more economically advanced than the Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish? It's an actors' thing, isn't it... To side with the "underdog". Childish.

Jeremy Irons could also barely hide his disappointment. He had even stated he "felt he was Irish" simply because he "enjoy(s) spending time" in the Irish countryside! What unique logic. You really can't argue with a thespian's deduction skills. Jeremy "felt" Irish hence he must be one. If only I could live the existence of a clueless actor; there must be some primordial joy in there somewhere in spending a lifetime of not having to ever think hard about anything.

2) 90% of the human subjects hope to find dirt-poor factory workers with a history of Socialist/Communist activism (incl. street protests and the like). Nothing gets those dim-witted, attention-seeking, barely educated acteurs more excited than the prospect of cementing their left-wing leanings into the minds of the viewer - as if we don't already know (or as if we care) that it is Marx whom they worship above all other awful icons.

There was a middle-aged soap-opera star who was disappointed when she found out that one of her ancestors dug himself out of poverty by building a successful business! "Oh, no, he wasn't dirt poor all his life. That's no good... How am I to remain a Labour voter if one of my relatives was so well off? It's a disaster!" That sort of thing...

Or are some of these actors simply afraid that BBC will fire them unless they prove their Marxiworthiness?

One of the best episodes was the Colin Jackson one. He visits Jamaica and finds out that he is an unusual mix of black, white, and even Indian ancestry. He even gets his DNA analyzed, defining his racial heritage down to the last percentage point. (7% Indian, for example.) As many episodes with non-white celebrities, the episode was also highly interesting for its details relating to slavery.

Another top episode was the one with Jeremy Clarkson. He belongs to a very rare breed of British actors and/or TV personalities who aren't left-wing clowns. His sarcastic comments about rabid environmentalists and their blatant folly were right up there with the best of "Penn & Teller".