Who Do You Think You Are - Danny Dyer 24th Nov

Originally Posted by kiterunner

That's a different couple; that Charles is a Bullivant, not a Buttivant.

This seems to be Charles Buttivant's marriage to Mary Ann - 5 Jul 1830 at Mortlake, Surrey, and her maiden name was Frampton:
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/16...18847254/facts


If it is the same Charles, it would explain why he didn't marry Hannah (and would fit with her previous choice of husband!) There is a public tree on ancestry which focuses on the Buttivant and Gosnold families and which shows both Mary Ann and Hannah Sarah with the same Charles.
http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/32...55864125/facts

Yes I realised that afterwards and edited my post, it is a god awful name to search.

It irritates me when they jump from one birth certificate onto the grandfather's connection to a prominent family without first giving a bit more information on the parents first!

Hannah's and Charles' circumstances and the fact he died 1865 would go some way to show why they became so very poor!

[kiterunner]

Originally Posted by maggie_4_7

Yes I realised that afterwards and edited my post, it is a god awful name to search.

It irritates me when they jump from one birth certificate onto the grandfather's connection to a prominent family without first giving a bit more information on the parents first!

Yes, me too.

Not quite as bad as whoever it was where they zoomed all the way back to Charlemagne, but I do prefer it when they focus on more recent ancestors.

Originally Posted by BlueSavannah

I said to my husband that they must have prepared the elderly relative for the information that Danny was going to tell her. I know Danny is a bit straight on the point, but I don't think he would even just sit down and tell her such sensitive information outright like that.

I thought the same. Considering how upset Danny got when he found out about it, surely he would have expected that Mary Ann's daughter might find it even more upsetting. And it can't be that he knew Sylvia wasn't the sort to get upset about that kind of thing, since he said he hadn't seen her since he was a kid.

Originally Posted by kiterunner

If Charles and Hannah didn't marry, that explains why Danny seemed so stuck when he got Albert's birth certificate (when he was still trying to trace a French connection with the Buttivants) - I thought the obvious thing to do next would have been to get Charles and Hannah's marriage cert to see who Charles's father was.

Sorry I missed this post, yes exactly but they wouldn't find one and so would have been more interesting from a social aspect re: their dire straits and the second family angle. How did Charles and why did Charles come to London and what was his father's James occupation in Norwich and how he met Ann Gosnold. They must have known about the other family.

I would have found that more interesting than the eventual royal connection to be honest.

The road they travelled to end up in the East End as paupers from the life in Norfolk would be so much more interesting and also what happened to the first family's descendants.

They have just dumbed it down, oh look cockney geezer descended from a King! Who cares I am more interested in the actualities of how and why they got where they got. Oh and he irritated me beyond reason that cockney rubbish is all an act and over done to the extreme its a caricature and I find it offensive to be honest.

I have found the last couple of series very disappointing in fact I still have 3 from the last series I haven't even watched yet!

[ElizabethHerts]

The British Newspaper Archive has more on Danny Dyer's working-class roots:

http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive....FZWMdwodRcsJXw

I haven't had time to investigate yet.

I did find him very irritating, although the episode was interesting.

[Ann from Sussex]

They have just dumbed it down, oh look cockney geezer descended from a King! Who cares I am more interested in the actualities of how and why they got where they got. Oh and he irritated me beyond reason that cockney rubbish is all an act and over done to the extreme its a caricature and I find it offensive to be honest.

I did find him very irritating, although the episode was interesting.

Agree with Maggie and Elizabeth and everyone else who was both irritated and interested at the same time. I don't watch East Enders; I did know that he plays a character in it but I knew nothing else about him. Can't say I took to him or his family....except for Auntie Sylvia who I thought was a real old time Eastender.

[kiterunner]

Originally Posted by ElizabethHerts

The British Newspaper Archive has more on Danny Dyer's working-class roots:

http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive....FZWMdwodRcsJXw

I haven't had time to investigate yet.

None of their newspaper clippings in that blog entry actually seem to mention Danny's ancestors; it's just general stuff. Probably because they have very few local London newspapers on there, which I keep moaning about.

Originally Posted by Ann from Sussex

They have just dumbed it down, oh look cockney geezer descended from a King! Who cares I am more interested in the actualities of how and why they got where they got. Oh and he irritated me beyond reason that cockney rubbish is all an act and over done to the extreme its a caricature and I find it offensive to be honest.

I did find him very irritating, although the episode was interesting.

Agree with Maggie and Elizabeth and everyone else who was both irritated and interested at the same time. I don't watch East Enders; I did know that he plays a character in it but I knew nothing else about him. Can't say I took to him or his family....except for Auntie Sylvia who I thought was a real old time Eastender.

BIB

Yes she was, poor thing looked very shocked at all the attention, that is the sort of East Ender I am used to.

[kiterunner]

Originally Posted by kiterunner

None of their newspaper clippings in that blog entry actually seem to mention Danny's ancestors; it's just general stuff. Probably because they have very few local London newspapers on there, which I keep moaning about.

Though, having said that, one that I found:

Morning Post 29 Jan 1861
CAUTION.- I hereby give notice, for the third time, that I will not hold myself responsible for any debts my wife, Mary Ann, may incur, having been separated upwards of 12 years.
CHARLES BUTTIVANT, 3, Mint-pavement, Tower-hill. Witness - Charles Buttivant, jun.

(although they were together in 1851!)

Originally Posted by kiterunner

Though, having said that, one that I found:

Morning Post 29 Jan 1861
CAUTION.- I hereby give notice, for the third time, that I will not hold myself responsible for any debts my wife, Mary Ann, may incur, having been separated upwards of 12 years.
CHARLES BUTTIVANT, 3, Mint-pavement, Tower-hill. Witness - Charles Buttivant, jun.

(although they were together in 1851!)

ooh well done what a great find.

So much more interesting than the civil war.

[Ann from Sussex]

ooh well done what a great find.

So much more interesting than the civil war.

Agree. We have all traced relatives who lived in the 19th century and studied their lives so we can relate (sorry, no pun intended) to things like that but not many of us have got back to the Civil War. The Danny Dyer WDYTYA was interesting to me because I had ancestors living in Poplar and Mile End at the same time as his family. In fact, some of mine spent time in the same workhouse. Wonder if they knew the Buttivants?