tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post72278110764986375..comments2024-03-17T12:34:47.729-07:00Comments on Ancestral Discoveries: "Who Do You Think You Are?" - Steve BuscemiJanice M. Sellershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785140555595069noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-7183487538784020032012-02-11T15:06:41.811-08:002012-02-11T15:06:41.811-08:00Yes there could be an age error on the death certi...Yes there could be an age error on the death certificate, or certainly on a census record (but probably not between age 0 and 11) but they provided I think not one item of evidence establishing she was the correct Jane, and did not address the conflict. Wouldn't we want to see Charles & Jane in 1920 and 1910 to substantiate her age? And in 1900 was she married yet and what age? InsteadIvan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10578551864886277907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-21323162210246278372012-02-11T07:45:44.655-08:002012-02-11T07:45:44.655-08:00Now that's an interesting conflict. I think I...Now that's an interesting conflict. I think I'll try to watch the episode again just to see that. Assuming you're correct, that doesn't automatically mean that the Jane in 1880 is the wrong person, because it wouldn't be the first time someone's age was wrong on a death certificate. It's common to find a difference of two to five years (usually making the person Janice M. Sellershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785140555595069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-57428806118231218812012-02-11T01:57:00.322-08:002012-02-11T01:57:00.322-08:00Just got around to watching this episode and I don...Just got around to watching this episode and I don't think anyone has yet noted: -- According to the death certificate of Steve's g-grandmother Jane, she died in 1928, age 48. If that Jane appeared on the 1880 census, she would have been an infant, NOT 11 years old, and I'm not surprised you didn't find her in 1870. That 11 year old servant girl MAY have been tied to Ralph B Ivan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10578551864886277907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-51944612696577614332011-11-02T09:05:31.724-07:002011-11-02T09:05:31.724-07:00It's been a while since I watched this episode...It's been a while since I watched this episode, so I don't remember the specifics of the Brandenburg children enumerated with Julia in the 1892 New York census. If Harry was about the same age as Jane, however, my first guess would be that this was a second marriage for Charles Brandenburg also, and Harry was a son from the first marriage.Janice M. Sellershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785140555595069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-55661371207586793312011-11-02T06:10:47.547-07:002011-11-02T06:10:47.547-07:00The Buscemi episode has only just been shown here ...The Buscemi episode has only just been shown here in the Netherlands. The German and particularly Dutch names were of interest to me.<br />However the whole thing doesn't make sense. If Julia VanderHof/van der Hooff etc etc. was married too Charles Brandenburg as well, she would have had both son Harry Brandenburg as well as daughter Jane Montgomery almost at the same time... approx 1868-1869Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-48326691672133501242011-04-11T07:54:22.426-07:002011-04-11T07:54:22.426-07:00Thanks for your comments. This is absolutely my l...Thanks for your comments. This is absolutely my least favorite episode over the two seasons. If they did solid research on Buscemi's family, it definitely didn't come across in the episode that was aired. From a viewer's perspective, there's no real way to tell if the problem was with the research or the editing. The problem is that even though it's only meant as Janice M. Sellershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785140555595069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-6669627691309527672011-04-11T05:59:22.262-07:002011-04-11T05:59:22.262-07:00I had the same reaction to this episode you appare...I had the same reaction to this episode you apparently had. When the "ancestry.com expert" (or whatever title they gave him) showed up, and all he said was "let's look at another tree on ancestry.com" I almost shouted at the Tv screen. Their "professional genealogists want $25 an hour, and if all one did was tell me "let's look at another tree" - which IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-49280835624816666362011-03-26T21:31:55.867-07:002011-03-26T21:31:55.867-07:00Beth, I agree there probably would have been somet...Beth, I agree there probably would have been something in the newspapers about whatever "altercation" may have taken place, but it's a given that they're not going to show or discuss all the records they find, due to time constraints. Since the case was dropped, maybe the newspaper accounts were more in favor of Montgomery? If that were so, it wouldn't have fit with the Janice M. Sellershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785140555595069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-60962877451423808112011-03-26T19:48:16.219-07:002011-03-26T19:48:16.219-07:00I agree with the points you made. I also got stuck...I agree with the points you made. I also got stuck thinking about the beating for which Ralph Montgomery was apparently prosecuted before the case was dropped. Wouldn't you think there would have been details in local newspapers about this, or more information in court documents? Wouldn't that be worth showing?Beth Galletohttp://galletomedia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-43921792785691615362011-03-26T11:53:40.393-07:002011-03-26T11:53:40.393-07:00Thanks, Heather! At least now I know I'm not ...Thanks, Heather! At least now I know I'm not the only one whose mind went in that direction.Janice M. Sellershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785140555595069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-896088369412551032011-03-26T11:42:47.770-07:002011-03-26T11:42:47.770-07:00Very funny! My first thought was also that Ralph f...Very funny! My first thought was also that Ralph faked a suicide to leave his family. They never even mention that as a potential option. I will also have to check out the behind the scenes stuff to figure some of their choices out.Heather Kuhn Roelkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07247311735034470203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-7472402313099083152011-03-26T09:50:03.544-07:002011-03-26T09:50:03.544-07:00A small postscript: I'm on Ancestry.com's...A small postscript: I'm on Ancestry.com's e-mail list, and this morning I received a marketing message saying that I could "watch and learn" "from the Ancestry.com experts who helped make the discoveries on Who Do You Think You Are?" The link connected me to a short video with sound bites from several researchers associated with Ancestry.com, including Joseph ShumwayJanice M. Sellershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785140555595069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-52656186281017566112011-03-26T08:46:15.858-07:002011-03-26T08:46:15.858-07:00Carol, I admit that the episode had some serious f...Carol, I admit that the episode had some serious flaws. I'm willing to concede that at least part of the reason it looked so haphazard is due to the medium. I'm still hopeful that the research that didn't make it on air supports the conclusions we did see. Unfortunately, we don't get to see all that research, and most people watching the show might not realize the difference.Janice M. Sellershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785140555595069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1350318808703965214.post-36352418807151016142011-03-26T08:34:23.256-07:002011-03-26T08:34:23.256-07:00If this had been the first episode of this show th...If this had been the first episode of this show that I had ever watched, I would not watch any more shows. As it is, this is simply the worst one I've seen.<br /><br />So much bad genealogy in one place. So many leaps of unsubstantiated logic, using unsourced material or badly researched sources... if I were a professional genealogist presenting this bag of fantasy to a client, I'd Carol Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04062588763657870062noreply@blogger.com