* "All Pool Relatives Except Partner Ancestors" Missing Some Direct Relatives

[BobWard]

This is a little bit of an off-shoot from my previous topic Display Multiple Relationships in Pedigree Diagrams (16414).

I select myself and run the Plug-In All Pool Relatives Except Partner Ancestors. Using the results from that Plug-In, I then created a new FH project for just my side of the family tree, i.e., my spouse's side is excluded.

When reviewing that newly created project, I notice that some of my blood relatives that were in the original tree (for both me & my wife) are now missing from the tree that I have created for just my side of the family.

In reviewing the missing relatives, the ones that are missing seem to have a common relationship to both me and my wife. And, when my wife's relationship to these people is given a higher priority than my blood relationship to the same person, that common ancestor is being excluded from the new tree for just my side of the family.

For example, in the combined project for both my wife and I, Elizabeth of York (1466-1503) is listed firstly as "6th cousin 18 times removed of my wife". The second relationship for Elizabeth is listed as "13th cousin 17 times removed of me". So Elizabeth and I do have a blood relationship connection.

Now, in the new FH project that was created from the Plug-In for just my side of the family, Elizabeth of York is indeed in the project, however, her relationship to me is now listed as "No direct relationship found between Elizabeth of YORK and Robert Lee WARD."

My theory is that since Elizabeth's first relationship in the original combined family project was to my wife, that the Plug-In has discarded the second relationship that links Elizabeth directly to me. In other words, the Plug-In may only be looking at the first relationship and ignoring any additional relationships when generating the new gedcom file/FH project.

Has anyone else noticed this behavior?

[Jane]

Have you checked Splitting my Wife's tree away from my own (14537)

You seem to be asking the same question over and over again on different threads.

[LornaCraig]

I'm sure Mike will look at this, as he wrote the plugin. But from what you say it is excluding the common ancestor as well as the branch leading from them to your wife, whereas it should be keeping the ancestor.

Mike's description of the plugin in that other thread says:

So for example if the selected person and their spouse both have the same great-great-grandfather, then the selected person's branch is all included, and the spouse branch is excluded, but only as far back as the common great-great-grandfather.

This does make it sound as if the common ancestor is treated as part of the excluded branch, which is not what you want.
No doubt he can fix this.

[tatewise]

Bob, there are some fundamental misunderstandings in your analysis regarding how relationships are determined.

It seems that the Plugin has worked correctly, and included Elizabeth of York as an Ancestor of you.
The way it works is quite simple. It excludes anyone who is an Ancestor of your Wife but NOT an Ancestor of you.
It does NOT use the Relationship(...) function discussed in Display Multiple Relationships in Pedigree Diagrams (16414).
To clarify Lorna's observation, any common ancestor is NOT excluded, as explained in the rule above.

As a matter of interest, did you tick the options for Associated Persons and Fact Witnesses?

There is no concept of relationships being discarded.
They are computed dynamically by FH from the GEDCOM data and its Family links.

I suspect the relationship to you in the original Project relies on a branch of the tree that has been excluded from the new Project.
However, I am struggling to understand what that missing branch structure might be.

Your statement "So Elizabeth and I do have a blood relationship connection" may not be true as it may be a relationship by marriage.
I suggest using Tools > How Related and Display Graphically to see exactly how that 2nd relationship is formed.
You can even show the 1st relationship on the same Diagram by selecting Use Current Diagram.
Does that throw any light on the relationship issue?
Does it rely on a branch that is missing from the new Project?

[LornaCraig]

Yes, sorry, I took Bob to be saying that some of his direct ancestors were missing. Otherwise there is no surprise.
In fact, the statement "some of my blood relatives that were in the original tree (for both me & my wife) are now missing from the tree that I have created for just my side of the family" is self evident, given that we know that his wife, and therefore a lot of her ancestors, are themselves blood relatives of his and he has chosen to exclude them from the tree (other than including his wife in her relationship as his spouse).

Elizabeth of York must be in one of those excluded branches, but as Mike says, she must be appearing in the remaining tree as somebody's spouse. As a spouse of a blood relative, and nothing more, she has "no direct relationship....."

Bob, if you want to see your relationship with people who are in those excluded branches, the best thing I can suggest is to make a copy of your file and in that copy unlink your wife from her parents. Then an All Relatives Diagram will display you and all of your known blood relatives, and will include you wife as your wife but not as a blood relative. This will avoid a lot of the duplication.

(Edit: This technique will still show your wife's parents and siblings but not her place in their family. You could create a 'dummy' individual in her parents' family and insert a line into the diagram linking your wife's box with the dummy individual's box. )

[tatewise]

If only it were that straightforward!
Relationships provided by FH do include those via spouses of direct blood relatives.
e.g.
In the Family Historian Sample Project the following relationships go through several spouses:

Nigel ANDERSON [51] is husband of mother-in-law of Charlotte CARRINGTON [25]

No direct relationship found between Rosemary MILLS [107] and Charlotte CARRINGTON [25].
Rosemary MILLS [107] is mother-in-law of Anthony Edward MUNRO [1] and Anthony Edward MUNRO is father-in-law of Charlotte CARRINGTON [25]

That was the main thrust of Display Multiple Relationships in Pedigree Diagrams (16414) where the relationships through the Root Individual's wife needed to be hidden.

[LornaCraig]

Ah, I just noticed that Bob says "in the new FH project that was created from the Plug-In for just my side of the family, Elizabeth of York is indeed in the project" but he doesn't say she is in the All Relatives diagram!

The plugin is preserving all pool relatives except wife's ancestors. So maybe Elizabeth of York is there as the spouse of a relative of spouse of a relative etc... There is a limit to the number of such steps FH will compute (the Relationship column in the Records window remains empty in such cases) although I think it can always list the chain of connections in the How Related tool, as long as the two people are in the same pool.

Perhaps he could try my suggestion of unlinking his wife from her parents (in a copy of the file) and see if that gets any closer to what he wants in terms of the relationships displayed in an All Relatives diagram.

[tatewise]

Lorna, there are two different (although related) topics here.

This thread is dealing with creating sub-trees excluding his wife's ancestors, and applies generally to such tree splitting.
The advantage is that the resultant All Relatives Diagram for the sub-tree are tidier and more attractive to one branch of a family.
It is the anomaly of why Elizabeth of York loses her relationship to him after the split that is the mystery.

The Display Multiple Relationships in Pedigree Diagrams (16414) thread is dealing with displaying his ancestral relationships in preference to his wife's in a full All Relatives Diagram that includes all his wife's ancestors, but also showing relationships via his wife when there are none to him, i.e. the basic wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, etc.

[LornaCraig]

It is the anomaly of why Elizabeth of York loses her relationship to him after the split that is the mystery.

I am suggesting that Elizabeth of York's relationship to him has been lost because the plugin has eliminated her links as a blood relative (or spouse of blood relative) and she remains in the pool only through a much more indirect link.

I think this because Bob says Elizabeth is in the new project created by the plugin, but he doesn't say she appears in an All Relatives diagram in the new project.

If the plugin kept "All Relatives Except Partner Ancestors" she wouldn't remain in the project. But the plugin is keeping "All Pool Relatives Except Partner Ancestors".

[BobWard]

In an effort to isolate what is going on, I first created a Relationship Diagram between me and Elizabeth of York. This diagram is generated from the combined family tree for both my wife and I. I selected the 13th cousin 17 times removed from me relationship to generate the diagram.

I have attached a snippet from the resulting diagram that shows where things start to get fouled up. In this snippet you will note that Ogive of Luxembourg is listed as my great (x29) great aunt. However, her son with Baldwin IV of Flanders (Baldwin V of Flanders) is listed as wife's great (x30) grandfather.

So, why is Baldwin V of Flanders listed as a relative of my wife, rather than a relative of me?

[BobWard]

I think this because Bob says Elizabeth is in the new project created by the plugin, but he doesn't say she appears in an All Relatives diagram in the new project.

You are correct in this statement, Lorna. Elizabeth of York does not appear in the All Relatives diagram for the new tree for just my side of the family. However, she is in the pool of people that are in that new project file. However, FH reports that she is no longer a direct relative of mine. Hence, she seems to me missing from the diagram.

[LornaCraig]

FH must be using an algorithm that treats wife's great (x30) grandfather as a closer relationship than 1st cousin 29 times removed which would be the alternative. So a direct line of descent to your wife takes priority over a line which goes up to your great x 29 aunt and back down again.

However, this is a different from the questions you asked at the beginning of this topic, which were (a) why some of your blood relatives are missing from the project created by the plugin (answer: because they were removed as they were also blood relatives of your wife) and (b) why someone who remains in the project is not shown as having a direct relationship with you (answer: they have remained in the project only because they are part of the wider 'pool', but the direct relationship was removed by the plugin.)

You are correct in this statement, Lorna. Elizabeth of York does not appear in the All Relatives diagram for the new tree for just my side of the family. However, she is in the pool of people that are in that new project file. However, FH reports that she is no longer a direct relative of mine. Hence, she seems to me missing from the diagram.

This illustrates the difference between an All Relatives diagram and the concept of an 'All Pool' diagram, which does not exist in FH but for which there is a request in the Wish List. An All Relatives diagram includes blood relatives and spouses of blood relatives, but does not include relatives-of-spouses-of blood relatives etc.

[BobWard]

Lorna, the entire diagram from the diagram snippet shown above does go all the way down to Elizabeth of York. However, on down from Baldwin V of Flanders, all remaining relatives are listed as relatives of my wife, not me. I displayed this snippet just to show where things seem to oddly start going astray.

Another odd thing I noticed is that the How Related box shows duplicate relationships for several of the paths to Elizabeth of York. Picture attached. I have never noticed this before with other relatives.

[LornaCraig]

the diagram snippet shown above does go all the way down to Elizabeth of York.

Yes, I understand that, because you generated the diagram from the combined family tree, not from the project created by the plugin. Elizabeth is correctly included in that All Relatives diagram.

As for the duplicated relationships in the list, I can only guess that the same level of relationship exists via two different routes in those cases. Four of the relationships are duplicated, three are not.

[tatewise]

I don't think Bob has said that Elizabeth of York appears in an All Relatives Diagram with Bob &/or his wife as the Diagram Root.

As has been said many many times an All Relatives Diagram does NOT guarantee showing all relatives in the same Pool.
The relatives it does show depends on who is chosen as the Diagram Root.
Without going into the long-winded formal definition, the diagram excludes the more distant relatives via multiple spouse partnerships.

That is different from the How Related Diagram that shows the entire relationship linkage between two Individuals in the Pool who may NOT appear in an All Relatives Diagram based on other people in the same Pool.

Once you get into Nth cousin M times removed it is not clear to me what types of relationships that includes.
It may involve relationships via a Spouse of an Ancestor of Bob and involve people considered Ancestors of his wife but not Ancestors of Bob, so they get excluded from the sub-tree Project and break the link.
To prove that will require an analysis of the 13th cousin 17 times removed identifying each person.
A How Related diagram with Hide Spouses & Siblings will show just those boxes, which can all be selected and Edit > Add to Named List will capture them.
Then compare those with the people included in the split sub-tree Named List.

[LornaCraig]

I don't think Bob has said that Elizabeth of York appears in an All Relatives Diagram with Bob &/or his wife as the Diagram Root.

Sorry, I should have said "in that How Related diagram", not "in that All Relatives diagram". The point is that he generated that diagram from the "combined family tree", not from the project created by the plugin. And in that combined tree Elizabeth does have one or more direct relationship links with Bob.

Are we in agreement that in answer to the questions Bob originally raised, the answers are:

(a) Question: why are some of Bob's blood relatives are missing from the project created by the plugin?
Answer: The plugin removed them because they are also blood relatives of his wife.

(b) Question: why is someone who remains in the project created by the plugin shown as NOT having a direct relationship to Bob?
Answer: The direct relationship was removed by the plugin, and they have remained in the project only because they are part of the wider 'pool' through an indirect route.

Your point about the All Relatives diagram not showing all the relatives in the same pool is the point I made in one of my other answers,

This illustrates the difference between an All Relatives diagram and the concept of an 'All Pool' diagram, which does not exist in FH but for which there is a request in the Wish List. An All Relatives diagram includes blood relatives and spouses of blood relatives, but does not include relatives-of-spouses-of blood relatives etc.

[BobWard]

Well, perhaps this FH omission of an All Pool diagram is what needs to be added to correctly display Elizabeth of York as a blood relative to me in the new project for just my side of the family. Just to be clear, my relationship to Elizabeth in our combined tree (for my wife & I) does show Elizabeth of York to be a direct blood relative to me. So, as you suggest, perhaps there are some programming algorithms for the Plug-In, or in FH, that may, or may not, have created this anomaly that is allowing my wife's relationship to Elizabeth to take precedence over my direct blood relationship to Elizabeth.

To address Mike's comment: "I don't think Bob has said that Elizabeth of York appears in an All Relatives Diagram with Bob &/or his wife as the Diagram Root." Yes, Elizabeth does appear in the All Relatives diagram for our combined tree, with either myself or my wife as the Root. Elizabeth just does not appear in an All Relatives diagram for my side of the family with me as the Root.

Sounds like I will have to find some other work-around to get Elizabeth's lineage back into the All Relatives diagram for the new tree that excludes my wife. I will keep experimenting and also sort through Mike's recent recommendations to try and narrow things down a little further. Getting a little complicated.

Thanks for the responses.

[tatewise]

What might help is to add the following two item Templates to the boxes of the diagram.

Ancestor of Root =IsAncestorOf(%INDI%,%CUR_FILE_ROOT%)
and
Ancestor of Wife =IsAncestorOf(%INDI%,%CUR_FILE_ROOT.~SPOU>%)

The Plugin algorithm is :-
If a person's box says Ancestor of Root Y, or says nothing, then they will be included except as follows.
If a person's box says Ancestor of Wife Y alone, or says nothing but are directly related to them, they are excluded.
The parent or child of anyone included is also included unconditionally.

[BobWard]

Mike,
Given what you state above about the Plug-In algorithms, are the assumed answers to Lorna's 2 above questions accurate?

If they are, that would seem to explain why Elizabeth of York got disconnected from me when I ran the Plug-In for just my side of the family.

[tatewise]

(a) is false but (b) is probably true.

(a) Your blood relatives should NOT be missing from the new Project.
The only people who should be removed are ancestors of your wife and her other relatives.
BUT only if they are NOT one of your direct ancestors
e.g. Elizabeth of York is not missing.
If you run the standard Query called Search for Orphans on the new Project then everyone will be in Pool 1.
So they must all be related, albeit indirectly via marriages.

(b) Lorna is almost certainly correct.
It would be useful to discover the relationships that cause this effect.

[LornaCraig]

Your blood relatives should NOT be missing from the new Project.
The only people who should be removed are ancestors of your wife and her other relatives.
BUT only if they are NOT one of your direct ancestors
e.g. Elizabeth of York is not missing.

Mike, can you please clarify:

There will be some people who are direct ancestors of Bob's wife but not direct ancestors of Bob. They may be distant cousins of Bob. But they are blood relatives of Bob. Are they removed or not?

In the topic where the plugin was introduced you said

So for example if the selected person and their spouse both have the same great-great-grandfather, then the selected person's branch is all included, and the spouse branch is excluded, but only as far back as the common great-great-grandfather.

(My italics) I took this to mean that Bob's distant cousins in his wife's line below the common ancestor are excluded by the plugin.

[tatewise]

Yes, it is quite murky, especially with what I suspect are rather convoluted relationships in Bob's tree.

The Plugin currently hinges on the =IsAncestorOf(...) function, so you may have a point.
Direct line Ancestors of Bob's wife will get excluded, unless they are direct line Ancestors of Bob.
But as you say, that may exclude distant blood relatives of Bob who are not his direct line Ancestors.

Bob's distant cousins below a common ancestor will only get excluded if they are direct line Ancestors of Bob's wife.

However, there are some relationships I know the Plugin will mishandle.
e.g.
The =IsAncestorOf(...) function does NOT take account of adoptive/foster/step parents, even when they are identified.
So ALL parents are considered direct line Ancestors, even when they are not.
The same is true for the =IsRelativeOf(...), =Relationship(...), =RelationCode(...) & =RelationPool(...) functions that treat all parent/child links as if they were blood relations.
There is little the Plugin can do about that, short of traversing the whole tree and working out relationships to its own rules.

I recall investigating all those relationship functions, and found it difficult to find anything better than using =IsAncestorOf(...).

[LornaCraig]

Bob's distant cousins below a common ancestor will only get excluded if they are direct line Ancestors of Bob's wife.

So inevitably some of his blood relatives will be excluded, which answers one of his original questions.

But what about other descendants of those direct ancestors of the wife (who are also distant cousins of Bob)? They will be left 'hanging' with no parents. I think this is the explanation for the 'Elizabeth of York' problem. If her parents, or grandparents, etc., were in the direct line of the wife's ancestors but below the common ancestor they would be removed, and she would remain in the project but with no direct relationship to Bob. This is exactly what he has found. (In fact she may even be in a different 'pool' now.)

To be honest, I don't think this plugin is going to be much help to Bob in achieving any of his goals. If he tries my suggestion of just unlinking his wife from her parents (in a copy of his project) he will retain all his own blood relatives and his own relationships to them without having to filter out the computed relationships which come via his wife. And if he wants to create an All Relatives diagram from that file he can do so, without all the duplications between his own and his wife's ancestors. He can create a dummy child in his wife's parents' family and insert a line in the diagram linking his wife's box with the 'dummy' box.

[tatewise]

Yes, I think I see that.
It would be useful to know the Pool number for Elizabeth of York and for Bob in the new Project.

For the Plugin to make a decision about 'blood relatives' there needs to be some algorithm, hopefully using FH functions, that would reliably make that decision.
i.e. What algorithm will reliably answer the question: Are A and B blood relatives?

[LornaCraig]

I can't find it in the Help files right now, but the definition FH uses is on the lines of:

A blood relative of a selected individual is anyone who is a direct descendant or direct ancestor, or a descendant of an ancestor.

(These are the people, together with spouses of any of them, who are included in an All Relatives diagram.)