Moderator Control Panel ]

Kim Cattrall

Recently watched a repeat and discovered something new? Have a query about how the show is made? This is the place to have your say

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby ksouthall » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:59 pm

We don't know how George Baugh's second wife and children felt about going to Australia. They may have wanted to go. We didn't see their point of view in the programme.
For all we know, it could have been his second wife's idea to go. We saw her sister-in-law's point of view and she said that her mother had not wanted her daughter to go. That does not mean the second wife did not want to go. We do not know how she felt about the move.
I agree that Kim Cattrall's mother and aunts suffered, but plenty of children suffer flea bites, rags, cold weather and starvation with BOTH parents on the scene. They may have been just as poor if George had stayed with them.
ksouthall
 
Posts: 1923
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:26 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby tree_hugger » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:51 pm

Maisie Oliver's memory of events was that the decision to emigrate was George's and came suddenly, without consultation with his wife. She is a primary witness to events but a secondary witness of conversations and opinions. By her closeness to Bella, she would be considered a reliable witness, within the constraints of her own perspective.

Maisie: It was a ten-pound package and he just came in [and] said "We're going to Australia."
Kim: There was no warning?
Maisie: No.
Kim: He just said... He got a deal and he said "We're out of here."
Maisie: Yes. He was gone, just out of the blue. None of us knew anything.
Kim: So, after twenty years of living...
Sheila: He just decided to go.
Kim: ...in one place, he just decided one day, we're going, just like that, and they...
Maisie: And Bella didn't want to go, at the bottom of it, I don't think.
Kim: No... she didn't, but she did what he said.
Maisie: She went, yes. His word was law.

Maisie's first comment is unprompted. She then agrees with Kim's restatement and adds to it. Her last statement is prompted, but "His word was law" goes further than "but she did what he said" and is consistent with the earlier information that he was "very strict" with his children.
Sheila's subsequent comment that Bella didn't want to leave her Mum and Dad is prompted by Kim's own interpretation, but modifies it according to her own understanding.

The suggestion that "it could have been his second wife's idea to go" is inconsistent with Maisie Oliver's understanding of events.

The suggestion that "they may have been just as poor if George had stayed with them" (or indeed had left and yet paid maintenance) is inconsistent with George's actual record of employment. One would have to speculate without substantiation to suggest that. George's disappearance was the direct precipitating factor in the girls' fall into poverty.

Re ksouthall's earlier post, I think ksouthall is confusing the general situation, where meeting newly-found relatives will naturally involve finding out about linking ancestors and comparing shared traits, with the particular situation where newly-found siblings are connected by a parent who has directly and deeply hurt one or more of those siblings. ksouthall describes my father as my ancestor; perhaps that's where the confusion arises. Looked at another way, and I mean this quite facetiously, our father chose to exclude himself from our family and my sister and I, as dutiful children, are respecting that choice.

Re the second paragraph of ksouthall's earlier post. I don't think that either the programme or I have painted George Baugh as "all bad". That's an Aunt-Sally argument. Making unsubstantiated excuses for someone's behaviour is not the same as trying to see things from their point of view.

When I said that I did not find the comment that "what's done is done" insightful, I was hinting, perhaps too obliquely, that I found it insensitive.

Re the comment in another post that "Kim owes her very existence to the fact that George abandoned his first family", one could put a similar point to the children of rape. It depends what is meant by "owes".
tree_hugger
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:00 am

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby Roy Shelton » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:16 pm

One thing I didn't understand was why it was not mentioned about the other children born to Marion Baugh after George's "disappearance". Most notably George Baugh born 4 December 1939. His birth certificate has his father as George Baugh and his mother as Marion Baugh (nee Thomas). Occupation of father: Baker and Confectioner. Address: 18 Upper Park Street. It was stated in the programme that George Baugh Sr left in 1938, so I'm a little confused. I just wonder why this fact was omitted from the programme as it's very relevant.

When researching family history nothing can be taken for granted. It's so easy to just hear one side of a story and make a drama out of it. We wasn't there, we didn't see what was going on. Cockroach and mice infestation goes on even today. Bigomy went on. It was hard then to get out of an unhappy marriage. It appears that George found a bit of happiness with Isabella as he would have done to her what he did to Marion and just walked out. He looked for support from his mother and she turned her back on him and told him he had made his own bed. George Baugh could have been a decent bloke who just didn't like his picture taken. The programme was very judgemental and unfair to his memory.
Roy Shelton
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:49 pm

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby MaryAnn_1845 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:29 pm

I've watched this series slightly out of sequence, so I came to this episode last. It made a compelling finale. It was moving and interesting to see the programme concentrate on just one man whose actions had had such a powerful impact on whom surviving generations thought they were.

I can understand Shane saying that, now she knew, she didn't have to think about it consciously any more. In very different circumstances my mother feels the same about her father. She was a "ten-pound Pom" in the 50s, partly escaping her father. When, a few years ago, I said that I was interested in his war record, she tactfully reminded me that I was welcome to investigate for my own information but she really didn't want to think about it or find out any more. That's maybe similar to what tree-hugger was hinting at.

Before seeing the programme, I was probably expecting Kim to have been more actressy about things. What I got was a daughter trying to keep a hold of her own composure while angry and emotional on behalf of her mother. Possibly her best work.
MaryAnn_1845
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:51 am

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby Roy Shelton » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:19 pm

I don't think the TV programmme got to the bottom of it. Say, for instance, your husband disappears in 1938 and the end of the next year you have a child and you name the father as George Baugh on the birth certificate. Now if the "father" left you more than a year before you must have had good reasons for doing this. So I don't think it was a simple as it was portrayed. I think an unhappy marriage and not being easy to get a divorce got in the way and I think Kim should try to find some understanding and forgiveness rather than bitterness against a man she never really knew and especially as it was her grandfather and he died some time ago. Times were tough. I feel the programme was very judgemental and unfair to his memory.
Last edited by Roy Shelton on Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:39 am, edited 5 times in total.
Roy Shelton
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:49 pm

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby ksouthall » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:48 pm

tree_hugger,
I apoloigise if you think I have been insensitive. I can understand how you might feel about what George Baugh did and what happened to his daughters is sad, however I was merely trying to point out that we do not have all the facts.
I felt the programme was very one sided. Although Maisie could be described as a "reliable witness", with regards to George taking his family to Australia, she is remembering events from nearly 50 years ago. It is also unclear as to who had no warning. Perhaps George and Bella told the rest of the family with no warning, but perhaps it had been discussed between the two of them, as man and wife, before announcing the decision to the rest of the family. If I was considering emigrating, I would discuss it with my husband first, before letting my in-laws know.
Perhaps you are too close to the situation because something similar happened to you, however every situation is different. When my dad died, it was different for me, my brother and my sister. Although the same person died, it affected us all differently. Similarly, what happened to you was different to what happened to Kim Cattrall's mother and sisters. By their reactions in the programme, Kim's mother seemed to have a different attitude to her sisters.

ksouthall
ksouthall
 
Posts: 1923
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:26 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby Editor » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:20 pm

The researchers knew about the other children that Marion had, after George left her, but it was felt that it was unnecessary to bring them into the programme. Although it says that the father of one of them was George Baugh on the birth certificate - this was not the case.

Sarah
Editor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:18 am

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby tree_hugger » Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:39 am

@ksouthall
Actually, it was the paragraph directed at fellow forum members which I found insensitive, not your defence of George Baugh. However, I find that your defence of George strays, beyond pointing out that we do not have all the facts, into the realm of unsubstantiated speculation. I found that the programme itself was pretty balanced in its approach.

I have experienced something similar, but by no means identical, to Kim's mother and aunts. I would not say that I am "too close to the situation". I gather you mean by that that it might affect my judgement, and that is a case of "special pleading", which is not good form.

Yes, everyone's different. That isn't in dispute. I probably wouldn't read as much into the verbal and visible reactions of the three sisters as it seems you do. However, given that the eldest had memories of her father, the youngest cannot have had memories of her father and the middle sister apparently had no memories but would, by the time he left, have regarded her father as an "attachment" figure, the sisters are bound to have reacted slightly differently. Still, when one sister says that her father had no heart, "He had a swinging brick", another says "I know now. I don't have to think about it any more... consciously", and the third says "And now I guess we can close the book", added to Kim saying "I don't think the children will tell me anything I don’t already know", meaning anything she felt a need or desire to know about her grandfather, does it sound like any of them went into making contact with their half-siblings with the aim of finding out more about their father? One would need a much greater sense of detachment for that to be a primary motivation.

Yes, I expect George told Bella about his decision to emigrate before he told the rest of the family. Unless we take an extreme view of George's autocracy, it is unlikely to have been very long before the rest of the family knew. Had the idea been Bella's, Maisie would certainly have known. If Maisie's account is reliable, Bella would not have had much say in the matter. Given the type of evidence and the impact of the events, as a time of last meeting, I think Maisie can still be relied upon.

I'm glad that Sarah was quickly able to clear up the confusion over Marion's subsequent children. At least it spares us the speculation that George Baugh might have flitted between wives. The circumstances surrounding Marion's first pregnancy after George disappeared have been discussed elsewhere and I'm not going to repeat them here. Suffice it to say that they certainly do not invalidate the impression of Marion given by the programme.
tree_hugger
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:00 am

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby ksouthall » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:32 am

tree_hugger,

Sometimes things don't come across as well in print as they do when speaking face to face so it is easy to misinterpret someone's intended meaning. I have not deliberately intended to offend anyone, despite the critisims which I feel some posters have levelled at me.

Let's just accept we have different points of view and leave it at that.

I joined the website forum because I like to try and help other people with their research if I can. I don't want to upet people or have an argument with anyone. Hopefully I have helped a few people further their research since I joined which I thought was one of the aims of the forums.

ksouthall
ksouthall
 
Posts: 1923
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:26 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Kim Cattrall

Postby Roy Shelton » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:35 pm

Tree hugger: "I found that the programme itself was pretty balanced in its approach".

The programme was far from balanced in its approach. It dealt with one issue George walking out on an unhappy marriage and then marrying bigamously. It failed to deal with accurately the years after he left. The following year Marion was pregnant and having another man's child, even though in law she was still married to George. Sarah has confirmed on the forum that she allegedly gave false information to register the birth of George (born 1939), which is a criminal act. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The programme was about moral issues but it gave a biased view. We didn't get deep into why the marriage didn't work. All it left was bitterness for a man who's now dead and can't reply to it all. Comments did come out like he was "lovely and very kind" but at the end of it he was hated and that is sad. What has happened to forgiveness and understanding, all for the sake of a drama.

I just wonder why certain members of the family chose not to be involved in this programme. I'd love to hear their views on it all.
Last edited by Roy Shelton on Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Roy Shelton
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Who Do You Think You Are? chat


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests