My Family At War

[ianw]

As regards the celebs, the fact is that their relatives were just ordinary people - with the exception of Lt General Snow - and they are very representative of the experiences of the millions that fought the Great War. As has been said, the celebs have the televisual/presentational skills to communicate their reactions to us. So in my opinion, the programmes work well. The understated Holmes episode worked very well, I think.

[irishmen1916]

I really liked the programmes last night and the night before, on the Dan Snow one, well lets just say the jury are still out, the problem with that one was that he has been in so many other Historical programme's and you really expect him to do better. I cant get over the fact that with a degree in History, he was only then looking up his Grandaddys records ?

On the other hand the other celebs are just like the ordinary joe soaps in the street when it come's to finding out about there relatives in the war.

All in all I am enjoying this and if it stirs others to start looking at their relatives part in the Great War, then all the better.

Peter

[squirrel]

Didn't think that last night's programme was as interesting as Tuesday's. but good enough in it's own way.

And why did they put Miss Silverton in a WW1 uniform and get her to do an assault course?

To show that her relative was not physically fit?

Pointless. The man's service record showed that he was a Carman - one who would have been used to driving and loading and unloading wagons or perhaps lorries even if he was older than might be expected when he joined up. As has been pointed out already, the incentive of the allowance paid to his wife having all those children might have influenced his decision.

Holmes was his usual self and the story was very interesting.

[pmaasz]

No-one has mentioned that Eamonn Holmes's ancestor's name was incorrectly spelled on his gravestone: FITZSIMONS instead of FITZSIMMONS. I wonder if he will ask CWGC to change it?

[David Seymour]

Thanks for comments re A E Nugent being a recalled reservist of some kind. Would that mean that he had to "enlist" as the newspaper said? If a reservist wouldn't he already have been enlisted?

With best wishes,

David

[Aurel Sercu]

I have had the honour and pleasure of speaking with Mr Matthew Kelly (episode of last Tuesday) when he was here in Boezinge near the location where Serjeant Nugent had fought on the east bank of the canal in the summer of 1915. I must say that seldom have I met a man who, as an 'outsider' with regard to things related to the war, if I may say that, was more genuinely interested and moved and even baffled when he learned about how things had been.

I must also say that I was a little critical when I heard about the concept of the programme. If my information is correct Mr. Kelly did not really know at the time he was here, that at the end of the 'trip' he would be standing at Serjeant Albert Nugent's grave in Niederzwehren Cemetery. I must admit that then I thought, somewhat cynically : "OK, and then the camera will zoom in on his face and hope that there will be a tear ... " (We have emo-TV here too.)

And this is what happened. (Though it was not really zooming I think.)

And ... I was moved. Because again it was so sincere.

Aurel

[Ken Lees]

Can anyone expalin why Kate Silverton (or the producer) kept her great-grandfather's unit a secret from the viewing public?

Kate did say in the program that she was proud that he had belonged to the Rifle Brigade. Perhaps the producer thought that was sufficient identification for the general audience.

I thoroughly enjoyed last nights programme, and it had nothing (well, perhaps just a little) to do with the gorgeous Ms Silverton.

Ken

[keggy65]

Pals

I'd like to add my, personal, ha'penny worth - apologies if it's a bit of a ramble.

I initially came to this forum seeking more information about my personal family history which involves a quite large number of members in the military - from one having served in the 'Militia' - now, I believe, The Royal Green Jackets - between 1825 and 1835 in Canada, my Grandfather in the RGA as well as two others in different regiments (one KIA in 1917), my Uncle, KIA in Egypt during WW2, my father in the Royal Irish Rifles in India and Egypt between 1924 and 1931 and again in WW2 having been recalled to service - to others in between and a currently serving member of my family.

I, of course, knew about WW1 but nothing substantial of the details. Before I had made my first post on this forum, I was astounded at the HUGE bank of knowledge and expertise of its members and afterwards, thrilled at the willingness of members to share that information and help others like me who are not nearly so knowledgeable.

As a decided amateur seeking information, I am, therefore, very grateful for the transmission of any programme/s that help me to gain some insight into 'what it was like' for my ancestors as well as hopefully attracting others to look for the details of their families. This series, while not perfect, has so far been must-viewing for me and I think Natalie Cassidy and Matthew Kelly - so far - have been the highlights. The "your ancestors may have worked in/on ..." etc may have been a bit vague and not definitive, but the information opened up possibilities to her about her relations that she had never thought of and I found her attitude, as a 'youngster', to the whole thing very encouraging.

I've never been a great fan of Matthew Kelly but I did see him in "Forgotten Voices" at the Riverside Studios in July 2007 and he was fantastic, moving quite a few in the audience to tears. His participation in My Family At War was equally moving and confirmed my admiration for him.

From my perspective, I would just like to say that any programme that highlights these events in our history is welcomed wholeheartedly by me. I would love more than anything to be able to research in such depth as other members of this forum and, most of all, to retain what I learn (definitely not so easy in my case). Because of watching programmes, lessons learnt here and with generous help from forum members, I have been able to provide my brother in law with his uncle's WW1 service records, MIC and the Gazetted MM notice - AND been able to interpret some of the records for him.

Last, but not least, I thought all forum members involved in the making of this series are (a) lucky beggars (!) and ( did a great job - my congratulations to them all.

Mabel

[bruce]

I've enjoyed all three programmes, in different ways.

I liked being able to watch, and see the Menin Gate, Yorkshire Trench, etc in the background, and am glad that the series has shown a cross-section, from a General down to men who survived, whilst also giving a possible insight into the effects in GB.

It has also been good to be able to put faces to names, since most of the experts used have been Forum Pals.

I just wish I wasn't so envious of those whose families have been so well researched!

Bruce

[Jonathan Saunders]

Thanks for comments re A E Nugent being a recalled reservist of some kind. Would that mean that he had to "enlist" as the newspaper said? If a reservist wouldn't he already have been enlisted?

With best wishes,

David

If he was a Reservist he was already enlisted. He would have received a mobilisation order, probably on 4^th August, telling him to proceed to Depot/Barracks with all haste.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[David Seymour]

Jonathan,

Many thanks for that. It appears, then, that the newspaper correspondent, presumably unversed in military teminology, reported Nugent's recall to the colours as enlistment, rather than explaining that he had been mobilised. This was not made clear on the programme and I wonder how many viewers were left with the impression that men were thrown into battle two weeks after first joining the Army?

With best wishes,

David

[David Seymour]

I have just managed to access A E Nugent's MIC and it says: "D of W", whereas the newspaper report said pneumonia. Presumably the one related to the other but, again, an interesting difference in the sources which might have been worth a mention on the programme. Yes, I know, it's soon going to not fit in to the 40 min of the schedule!

With best wishes,

David

[Jonathan Saunders]

I have just managed to access A E Nugent's MIC and it says: "D of W", whereas the newspaper report said pneumonia. Presumably the one related to the other but, again, an interesting difference in the sources which might have been worth a mention on the programme. Yes, I know, it's soon going to not fit in to the 40 min of the schedule!

With best wishes,

David

Pneumonia as a result of being gassed?

[squirrel]

IIRC the death was about 6 months after his capture.

[benghazi]

Dont know what I have enjoyed more, the programs or the forum discussion.

roger

[Jim Clay]

So long as you have enjoyed both, Roger!

[ianw]

Yes, these programmes have certainly injected a bit of life into the Forum which is excellent news and so many Forum luminaries have got a run out on the tele! No doubt Taff had to do several fittings for Kate and her RB uniform. It's a tough life in the Khaki Chums!

But I'm still looking forward to Rolf - will he break into "Stairway from Heaven" at any point?

[keggy65]

Or "Two Little Boys"? Fairly poignant I feel.

Mabel

[DavidMillichope]

Apologies for a late entry to this fascinating thread but I must return to the General Snow item. There have been several well constructed critiques of this already whose details I won’t roll over again.

What I must air is my own despair and disappointment at such a missed television opportunity.

With Dan Snow and the diaries there was an enticing opportunity to tell a particular story in a wonderfully effective way. There has been much to enjoy in the program’s other chosen subjects, but the story of the general’s great grandson was, in the end, just chucked away in the interests of some cheap crowd pleasers. Does this tell us more about television program making than anything else ?

Why oh why couldn’t the script just bring itself to say that yes, Thomas Snow’s performance was poor, yes he did not have to endure the conditions and misery of the soldiers beneath him, yes his plan did result in the slaughter of many men ( and let us not deny it was unimaginably tragic and horrible), but why not then make the infinitely more interesting point that many generals were, by and large, blundering around in a situation they little understood for reasons that were not entirely of their own making. You still have the pity of war but you also have the tragedy of everybody ( including the generals) who are caught up in a war that had spiraled out of control. There’s no need for all the conventional winking and elbow nudging of a distant chateau, periods of absence during the planning, old and past it references, and dismissively breezy entries in diaries.

There was a hint earlier on that this was where the producer/director was heading ( the earlier innocence and the “small war” experience for example) , then disappointingly it was violently fudged and became pure Blackadder for the sake of the ritual sacrifice under the Thiepval monument. Alan McDonald did make the (somewhat muted) point that WW1 generals were “soft targets”, but by then this consideration was hopelessly sinking under the sheer weight of the reinforced stereotypes.

It all smacked of “ Pick on the quiet fat kid in the corner of the playground ”

Come on BBC, is there a group of program makers that recognises this potential to tell a powerful and sensitive story through this diary ( with the luxury of more air time)- that furthermore takes the unprecedented step of a more sympathetic treatment of the WW1 generals caught in an unremitting graveyard trap ?

[bmac]

I have resisted the temptation to comment on my involvement in this programme guessing that whatever I said would cut no ice with certain members who believe they know better than I my opinions on WW1. All I am prepared to say is that c.90% of what I said was not used, that I had no say in the editing or contextualisation of what I did say and that the first time I saw the programme was Monday night along with everybody else. I share the disappointment of many in certain aspects of the programme and this is compounded by the knowledge that there was filmed, but not used, a reasonably balanced view of what went wrong at the place the programme actually never mentioned by name: Gommecourt. That the other 'victims' of the attack, Stuart Wortley and the 46th and 56th Divisions were also not mentioned is equally unfortunate. On balance, however, I am pleased that the subject has probably had its first ever airing in the media and that, maybe, some relatives of those involved might decide to visit those rather lonely cemeteries at Hebuterne, Gommecourt and Foncquevillers. Making TV documentaries must be all about compromises and some are more right than others, but members should be aware that the nature of those compromises is entirely out of the hands of the 'poor, bloody talking heads' who are sent over the top with no true idea as to the results sought back at HQ.

PS I was supposed to be described as an 'author' not 'historian', which was fine by me, but this too did not survive the production process.

[Murrough]

I have thoroughly enjoyed this series so far and I was particulary interested in Eamon Holmes contribution because of the Irish angle.I was astonished to see that his grandfathers death 37 years later was attributed to the wounds he suffered in the war.With his grandfather and grand uncle killed,his family paid a heavy price,may they rest in peace.

Regards,

Murrough.

[ianw]

Bmac - Yes, what you say about not being able to control fully the shape of your contribution rings true with me. I am sure you watched the show with a few shakes of the head.

Coincidentally, Gommecourt came up in conversation with an old lady last night who said that her father was on the Somme with the Kensingtons. I suspect that his service number indicates he arrived after July 1st - for me it remains one of the more interesting areas to visit.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I have resisted the temptation to comment on my involvement in this programme guessing that whatever I said would cut no ice with certain members who believe they know better than I my opinions on WW1. All I am prepared to say is that c.90% of what I said was not used, that I had no say in the editing or contextualisation of what I did say and that the first time I saw the programme was Monday night along with everybody else. I share the disappointment of many in certain aspects of the programme and this is compounded by the knowledge that there was filmed, but not used, a reasonably balanced view of what went wrong at the place the programme actually never mentioned by name: Gommecourt. That the other 'victims' of the attack, Stuart Wortley and the 46th and 56th Divisions were also not mentioned is equally unfortunate. On balance, however, I am pleased that the subject has probably had its first ever airing in the media and that, maybe, some relatives of those involved might decide to visit those rather lonely cemeteries at Hebuterne, Gommecourt and Foncquevillers. Making TV documentaries must be all about compromises and some are more right than others, but members should be aware that the nature of those compromises is entirely out of the hands of the 'poor, bloody talking heads' who are sent over the top with no true idea as to the results sought back at HQ.

PS I was supposed to be described as an 'author' not 'historian', which was fine by me, but this too did not survive the production process.

I appreciate what you are saying about not having control over what was used in the final edit of the programme Bill. Nor that you knew that the programme makers would introduce every talking head used as 'historian.' However I found nothing you said on the broadcast programme which was not consistent with the views on Great War generals which you have regularly and at length expressed on this forum and in your books.

You talk of contextualising. But it is extremely difficult to imagine in what context most of what you were saying could have had any other meaning than the one which came across so strongly in the programme and which, as I say, is so consistent with the views you've put across more extensively in your books, website and this forum. For what it's worth, I believe you sincerely believe the Lions led by Donkeys line which you take. But I also imagine that it was for that very reason that you were suggested by the programme's historical advisor to put a case against British generals and Snow in particular in response to which the disingenuous Dan Snow, presumably for some idea of 'dramatic television,' could act nauseatingly contrite on his grandfather's behalf.

The hatchet job on Snow in particular and the British generals in general in the Snow section of the first programme of the series was deeply, deeply flawed and unbalanced in my view. And I do not accept what some have said, that it is better that we get bad or dated polemical Great War programmes than none at all. The rest of the series has shown that the concept can work in an informative and reasonably balanced way. The Snow episode did neither of these things.

ciao,

GAC

[towisuk]

I for one have not kept my thoughts on this series of programmes to this forum. I have thanked the BBC for what I consider to be an excellent series

on people who took part in WW1 and the effect on their relatives left at home.

I was quick to complain to the BBC about the antics of two moronic individuals (Brand and Ross), so it is only fair I praise the BBC for what I consider some of the best programmes this year. If we don't let the media know what we want on the box, then I for one am not surprised when we don't get programmes we are interested in

Please fellow forum pals, if you have enjoyed this type of programme, LET THEM KNOW. It only takes a minute to e-mail them on their "contact" site.

regards

Tom

[bmac]

As I said I do not want to get involved in a discussion on this subject except to say that my books focus on a specific action and, yes, I have very definite views about the conduct of many of the senior officers involved in that action and on the general planning of the Somme battle. To date, no-one has, to my satisfaction, provided any information to change my mind. It is also no secret that I am no fan of DH but I do not believe this, on its own, can place me in the Lion/Donkeys, Butchers/Bunglers camps which seems the easy shorthand around here for idiot or knave.

I am not aware of having made many, if any, comments about the performance of other generals at other times (with the exception of Stuart Wortley and the DH/Hohenzollern redoubt issue) and, therefore, I am not sure how it is possible to determine my views on other participants based on what I have written here or elsewhere.

As far as the programme is concerned, no-one, from what I have seen, has been able to say the Snow performed anything other than badly at Gommecourt and his behaviour afterwards was IMHO despicable. I was asked to comment on his performance which I did in a programme entitled 'My Family at War" not "British Generalship on the Western Front" or anything else. I mentioned nobody else and, rather irritatingly, the whole of my comment which started "First World War generals are rather soft targets" (or words to that effect) was not used. But, were any other generals mentioned by me? No. Did I say that Snow was typical of British generals? No. I will agree that I said, again something along the lines of: "Generals were completely out of touch with their men once a battle started" and I am not sure how anyone can dispute this in the context of pre-radio warfare but I qualified this by saying that communication between commanders and troops once in action was a besetting problem for all generals in WW1 and how could it be otherwise? It is one of the Great War's realities.

But there you go. I have said more than enough. I am sure we all have better things to do with our lives than argue fruitlessly on this issue.