Aired: 11 February 2011
Ancestry.com Presence: Two commercials, one sponsor mention, and one pointed product placement (I wonder if ancestry required the product placement for every episode...).
- I observed much less archival transgressions this week.
- His ancestor was mentioned a couple of times by George Washington. My 7th great-grandfather Colonel Jonathan Latimer (1724-1806) was mentioned by George Washington as well (Link), and given that he's one of my favorite founding fathers, I can totally understand McGraw's reaction.
- Missouri! Nice to see that he had some Kansas City relatives. Still, why didn't they meet at the Midwest Genealogical Center? Was it not open when they filmed this?
- Going to the nearest living relative for a starting point is ALWAYS a good idea. Sometimes, they don't remember things correctly, like one of mine that swore her grandmother died in a tornado when in fact her death certificate says Pneumonia. However, having some sort of starting point is always good, even if you have to disprove some of it.
- Name changes did occur. I researched a friend's line once to discover that Fox was actually FUCHS in the 18th century. It makes sense if you say Fuchs with a German accent, as it does sound like Fox.
- I did learn something in regards to the Carolina book that promised paid for passage from England to America and land from the Queen. I hadn't heard that before, though I was familiar with the practice of fudging the truth a bit to entice immigrants.
- Music, again. It just doesn't invite me into the story. I just want it to stop.
- Although I liked McGraw's determination to find out how his Crissman relatives died in the 1770s, finding death information at the time, especially in the wilderness is not a normal thing AT ALL. You're lucky if you find a labeled grave.
- Yes, Tim McGraw, it is nice to get so far, so quickly, but I'd LOVE for ancestry/ProGenealogists to mention the estimated research hours it took to find that stuff at the end of the show.
In the End: I learned a little, the archival transgressions weren't so obvious, and they did bring up a few things that I think are useful for people to know.
Rating: 4 out of 5 (Mainly because I didn't see pens or too much touching of old documents.)
Things I'd Like to Reiterate: I suppose you can tell I dislike Ancestry's commercials. I'd like to state here that clicking a leaf will not give you everything about your ancestor on Ancestry.com or anywhere else. Half the time the leaf will take you to trees that are incorrect. Please remember that when you're researching your family tree.
Next Week: Rosie O'Donnell