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

[tatewise]

I suspect you are correct, but because it can include relationships through spouses, it may include more than 'blood relatives', plus it does not include all Pool relatives, which is what users have requested the Plugin should retain, i.e. All Pool Relatives Except Partner Ancestors.

You could keep extending that definition ... or a descendant of an ancestor, or an ancestor of those descendants, or a descendant of those ancestors... and still be defining 'blood relatives'.

It also depends on the 'blood relative' of which person.
We are trying to resolve the 'blood relatives' of two people; in this case Bob and his wife.
The complication is where they overlap, deciding who to retain and who to exclude.
An All Relatives Diagram can have him as root, or her as root, or both as root, and still not include all 'blood relatives'.

[LornaCraig]

because it can include relationships through spouses, it may include more than 'blood relatives'

No. That definition does not include relationships through spouses. Spouses only come into it because they are 'added on' when deciding who to display in an All Relatives diagram. They are included in the broader category of All Relatives.

The basic definition which I gave encompasses only blood relatives. It captures all, and only, those people who have DNA links. (setting aside the separate issue that FH treats adopted individuals in some circumstances the same as birth children).

An All Relatives diagram with an individual as root includes the set of blood relatives plus anyone who is a spouse of a blood relative. An All Relatives diagram which has a couple as the root simply displays the combined set of the two individuals' blood relatives, plus spouses of anyone in the combined set .

The question of whether someone wants the plugin to retain all pool individuals is another matter...

Edit: See the Rows in the standard All Relatives query. BUT that query has a minor bug which I reported to Calico in January 2017. The text of my report was:

I have noticed a minor bug in the All Relatives standard query, which in some circumstances can result in extra individuals being included in the result set.

The first row of the query adds ancestors of the original individual and includes and spouses of relatives. The second row adds descendants of anyone in the current result set, then adds spouses again. In fact the spouses should ONLY be added in the SECOND row. If any ancestor had a second (non-ancestral) spouse and that spouse is added in the FIRST row then all descendants of that spouse will be added in the second row. This may include some who are descended from a partner other than the ancestor of the original individual, so are not ‘relatives’, in the FH sense, of the original individual.

The problem is mentioned in this topic on FHUG: http://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=14475

That topic also discusses issues with the trio of functions =IsRelativeOf() and =Relationship() and =RelationCode() which I think Mike Tate has previously reported to you.

They responded with the standard 'we have logged it' reply.

[tatewise]

I have an inkling of an idea that the =RelationCode(...) function will return numerical values for GENS_UP and GENS_DOWN where the two people are 'blood relatives' (i.e. have a common ancestor), but will return nil otherwise.
If I'm correct (big if) then that could replace the =IsAncestorOf(...) tests in my Plugin.
Then it would return everyone in the Pool, unless they are a 'blood relative' of the Spouse (Bob's wife), except when they are also a 'blood relative' of the Root (Bob).
Let me experiment...

[BobWard]

I don't know if this has any relevance or not, but I will throw it out here anyway.

Could the term "direct ancestor" be a key phrase in this mystery. The Google definitions that I am getting for "direct ancestor" means: A direct-line ancestor is someone from whom you descend in a direct line, parent to child, grandparent, great-grandparent, etc.

I may have confused this issue when I have previously stated that I was a direct blood relative to Elizabeth of York. I used that term to mean that we shared a common blood ancestry going back to a common multi-great grandfather in Robert I, Duke of Normandy. Elizabeth's direct lineage was generated from Robert's son William I (The Conqueror), while my direct lineage is connected to Roberts's daughter, Adelaide of Normandy.

So, that connection between Elizabeth and I does not fit the above definition of a direct ancestor.

So if Elizabeth is not my direct ancestor, maybe that is why our relationship is getting broken when using the Plug-In to exclude my wife's side of the family. Is that direct ancestor definition a key element in the Plug-In algorithm?

[LornaCraig]

Bob:
Yes, we understand that, and have already worked out that Elizabeth of York is in a group who were 'orphaned' when one of her direct ancestors was removed by the plugin. She is a blood relative (she shares DNA from a common ancestor with you) but is not herself a direct ancestor.

Mike:
If I may be entirely honest (and I challenge your expertise with trepidation) I have never seen the point of this plugin. As it stands, it seeks to simplify a complicated tree by removing some key individuals who are or a subset of blood relatives of both the file root and the spouse. And as a side effect it leaves smaller sub branches who were descended from them unattached to the main tree. I am struggling to see how this is in any way helpful.

Your latest suggestion sounds as if it will just remove all the wife's blood relatives who are not also the root's relatives. But that doesn't simplify the relationships computations in any way. The wife's 'other' blood relatives are not the problem.

As I have said several times, if Bob wants to see his own relationship with some of those 'common' relatives but without having to filter out the relationships which come via his wife, I suggest he makes a copy of his file and, in the copy, unlinks his wife from her parents. If he also wants to display an All Relatives diagram this could be done, but he would need to insert a line in the diagram linking his wife's box to a 'dummy' child box in her parents' family. Admittedly the boxes are likely to be along way apart in the diagram but there's not much that can be done about that.

This unlinking approach is simpler than any plugin, and it's easier to see what is going on because nobody is deleted.

[tatewise]

The Plugin was produced and evolved for a number of users who wanted to produce subset trees for various purposes.
Some wanted to exclude not just one spouse, but also produce separate parent trees, or even separate grandparent trees, etc.
This was often to send to family relatives who were only interested in specific branches.
Those users were struggling to use the existing Diagram and Query features to achieve their objectives ~ hence the Plugin.

As it evolved, users wanted it to cater for common ancestor scenarios similar to, but perhaps not as complex as Bob's.
Most seemed unconcerned or unaware about preserving every direct blood relationship than Bob in this thread.

The challenge may be insurmountable, and an overnight review of the rules leads to the following.
In the exported GEDCOM tree Bob wants to:

1. Remove his wife's branch.
2. Retain his direct blood relatives.

I realised overnight that those two are in direct conflict when they share a common ancestor.
By definition, if they share an ancestor, then Bob and his wife are blood relatives through that common ancestor.
So are Bob and his wife's siblings & their descendants, and also Bob and one of his wife's parents, and one of her grandparents...
Thus it is impossible to remove ALL his wife's branch AND retain ALL his direct blood relatives.
If all his blood relatives were retained, then the only branches removed would be the ancestral branches off his wife's direct line to the common ancestor(s).

So unless we can devise a way of limiting how far reaching the direct blood relatives should go, the two criteria cannot be met.
i.e. retain his direct blood relationships near common ancestors, but not those near his wife, which will be more distant.
That might be possible when considering the GENS_UP and GENS_DOWN values I introduced earlier.

I am not yet sure whether the solution proposed by Lorna to 'doctor' a copy of the tree would satisfy Bob's requirements.

[LornaCraig]

I realised overnight that those two are in direct conflict when they share a common ancestor.

I thought that was obvious from the start!
Perhaps I should have stated the obvious earlier in this thread.
(Apologies, but I didn't realise that you didn't realise that. )

[Jane]

If you have not already, could you check the SPOUSE_START and SPOUSE_END values, to skip relationships which go via the Spouse?

[LornaCraig]

From this and other recent threads I think Bob has three objectives:

1. To discover the closest relationship between himself and any other blood relative, but excluding any relationships which come via his wife. This can be done by unlinking his wife from her parents.

2. To display those relationships in an All Relatives diagram. This can be done if he as an individual is the diagram root, using the same ‘unlinked’ file. His wife's parents will still be displayed, because at least one of them is a distant cousin of his. He can then insert a line in the diagram linking his wife's box with a 'dummy' child box in her parents' family.
On reflection if he and his wife as a couple are the diagram root the unlinking technique won’t work. But it’s unclear why he would want to include his wife’s entire collection of relatives in a diagram which displays only his relationships to people, and I’m not sure he does want that.

3. To create a file containing the entire pool (or even all pools) from his main project but excluding anyone who is a relative of his wife but not of himself. This should be achievable with a plugin.

[tatewise]

Yes, I am looking at SPOUSE_START and SPOUSE_END values in the Plugin and hoping that will help yield a solution.
I have already used them in Display Multiple Relationships in Pedigree Diagrams (16414) to help Bob with a related issue.
That provides a solution to objective 1. and displays them in any type of Diagram (part of objective 2.)
Some users want several spouse branches removed to yield independent grandparent trees with nobody else in the GEDCOM so it can be sent to family members. Lorna's trick does not help with that which also gets trickier if more spouses need to be excluded.

It was the focus on the much more distant relationships higher up Bob's tree that distracted my attention.
I was also making the point clear to everyone interested in this thread, especially Bob himself.
He wants to prune his wife's branch, but still retain direct blood relationships, and I am not certain he was aware of the conflict.

However, I have been experimenting with using SPOUSE_START and SPOUSE_END with GENS_UP and GENS_DOWN to discover direct blood relatives, which is working well with the following two adjustments:

1. Adding a refinement to include all descendants of the selected individual(s).
2. Adding a condition to exclude direct blood relatives of a selected individual who are closer to the selected individual's partner/wife than they are to the common ancestor.
   The idea here being to exclude the branches close to the selected individual's partner/wife even though strictly speaking they are blood relatives of the selected individual.
   The sensitivity of this condition could be set via a Plugin option.

I think this may be a solution to objectives 2. & 3. and the compromise that resolves the conflicting requirements.

[BobWard]

Lorna, just to follow up with your suggestion about un-linking my wife from our combined tree.

I did create a copy of our combined FH project. I then disconnected my wife from both her parents.

I then created an All Relatives diagram, with me as the Root, and it does retain the correct path from me to Elizabeth of York, and, does now list Elizabeth as my 13th cousin 17 times removed, without (obviously) any mention of Elizabeth being related to my wife.

However, the entire lineage of my wife's mother is still included in the diagram, which would be expected, since I share a distant multi-great grandfather with my wife. The diagram, again as expected, shows me as various levels of "cousin" to all my wife's maternal ancestors.

The multitude of colored ribbons in the diagram, as we get way back in time, is very confusing & complicated at best, making it very difficult to sort out and understand all the ancestral inter-relations.

Having now created a workable All Relatives diagram for just my side of the family, is there an quick & easy way to purge all my wife's paternal ancestors (who are now unconnected) from the pool so that I can created a combined ISR report for just my blood relatives?

Edit: I think I just figured that last question out, i.e., just run an All Relatives query and my wife's paternal line (not connected to me) has been removed. Save those relatives to a Named List and create the combined ISR.

[tatewise]

Bob, an easier way is to create a Query that prompts for a Pool number and lists every Individual in that Pool.
Then when you run the ISR (or any other Report) in the Select Records dialogue use Add Using Query and run your custom Query to select everyone with the desired Pool number (probably 1).

[tatewise]

The more I investigate, the more conflicts of interest arise when trying to prune branches off a family tree.
They may be obvious to some, but it seems that certain compromises are inevitable. e.g.

1. Even without common ancestors, the act of removing any spouse ancestral branch will remove some direct blood relationships for at least all of that person's descendants.
2. If two distant spouses (such as a wife and a grandfather) share a common ancestor, and only one such spouse ancestral branch is to be removed, then should the shared ancestors above the common ancestor be removed or retained?
3. In Bob's scenario, removing his wife's branch will either remove some of his direct blood relatives, or retain all her direct lineage back to the common ancestor.

After some experiments with SPOUSE_START, SPOUSE_END, GENS_UP & GENS_DOWN there is a revised Plugin that seems to work the same as its predecessors when there are no common ancestors involved, and removes the chosen branches in there entirety.
In case 2. above it may remove or retain the shared ancestors depending on whether they are blood relatives of a person selected when initiating the Plugin.
In Bob's scenario, it keeps his direct blood relatives through the common ancestor and in his wife's direct lineage, if they are nearer to the common ancestor above than to his wife below, but all the rest of his wife's branch is removed.

Anyway, try the attached All Pool Relatives Except Partner Ancestors Plugin Version 0.8 Date 29 Nov 2018.
At present it has no additional options to govern any of the compromises mentioned above.
Please let me have your feedback.
[EDIT: Attachment deleted as Plugin V1.0 is now in Plugin Store.]

[LornaCraig]

I don’t have a sufficiently multi-interconnected tree to test this very well (I suspect Bob may be the only FHUG user who does!) but the compromise you describe seems reasonable. In Bob’s case if he wants to send a Gedcom or a Report to someone who has a closer blood relationship to himself than to his wife the recipient is unlikely to be interested in the very distant (i.e. distant from the recipient) branches which lead to Bob’s wife.

As long as the user understands that by removing even just the ‘lower half’ of the spouse’s lineage they will be removing some of their own distant blood relatives that’s OK. This topic started because Bob had not realised that would happen.

As far as I can tell, the plugin now sensibly excludes any sub branches that would be ‘orphaned’ by the removal of someone in the spouse’s direct ancestral line. That was the other puzzle Bob had.

Regarding your point 2, “If two distant spouses (such as a wife and a grandfather) share a common ancestor....” I am a bit confused. In what sense is a grandfather a distant spouse? Do you mean a spouse of a grandfather other than the spouse who is the grandmother?

[tatewise]

By distant spouses I mean spouses of people generations apart.
So the wife's husband is the grandson of the grandfather (i.e. spouse of the grandson's grandmother).
When running the Plugin the user might choose the grandson or perhaps the grandmother to remove their spouse's branch.

[BobWard]

Mike,
I downloaded your Plug-In revision and ran it on my combined tree (wife & I) with me as the Root person. It did indeed remove all traces of my wife's lineage. And, Elizabeth of York is correctly retained as my 13th cousin 17 times removed, i.e., there is no mention of Elizabeth being related to my wife. When I type my wife's & Elizabeth's name into the How Related box, it returns all relationship paths only to me, e.g., 13th cousin 17 times removed of husband of (my wife).

When I say that it removed all traces of my wife's lineage, it really wiped it clean. Since my wife and I share some distant ancestors, I am related to the maternal side of her family (as discussed previously), for example, her mother & I are 30th cousins, once removed. Those DNA links between me and my wife's maternal lineage are now all gone.

I did notice one curious thing that happened. In our combined tree All Relatives diagram , I am related to George V (King of the UK) as a half 25th cousin 4 times removed. George V was married to Mary of Teck.

In the new All Relatives diagram (wife's side removed), it now shows me related to George V as half 25th cousin 3 times removed. Plus, his wife, Mary of Teck is no longer shown as a spouse of George V, i.e., George is no longer listed as having ever been married. So, all further descendants of George and Mary are now also missing. Note: Mary of Teck has never been listed (in our combined tree) as a blood relative of my wife.

Not a big deal, but it appears that the exclusion of my wife's lineage somehow impacted my relationship to George V, and caused his wife to be removed.

So, as you imply there may be some compromises made when running the Plug-In on very complex trees with several distant ancestral inter-relations.

[tatewise]

Thank you for trying the Plugin Bob.
Yes, a great deal of your wife's branch will be removed, which is partly what the Plugin is being asked to do.

If I have understood the way it works correctly, then it should not have removed all traces of your wife's lineage.
Let us say there are 20 generations between your wife and your common ancestor in her lineage.
Then the oldest 10 generations should have been retained, and the 10 generations in the lineage just above your wife removed.
So there will be a 10 generations gap before you find people in the pruned tree, who are in her lineage in the combined tree.
That strategy will be applied to each similar common ancestor shared by you and your wife.

So the Plugin is applying a 50% rule, where it retains the oldest 50% of generations and removes the youngest 50% of generations.
That could be governed by a Plugin option that allowed you to choose the percentage of generations to retain.
Then 100% would retain all the generations, so your wife's entire maternal direct lineage to the common ancestor(s) would be retained and only the other ancestral branches would be removed.
Is that of any interest to you?

Regarding George V and Mary of Teck, is she listed as a relative of yours in the original combined Project?
What about relationships to their descendants from you or your wife?
If Mary of Teck is somehow related to your wife's branch (although not a direct blood relative) then she will be removed if not a blood relative of you, or if subject to the 50% rule above. Maybe George V and Mary of Teck are just on that 50% divide and those nearer your wife have been removed. Without a more detailed understanding of the whole tree it is difficult to say. But an experiment with a different percentage value as discussed above might change who gets retained. If that makes any sense.

[BobWard]

Yes, Mike, I think the option to choose the percentage of generations to retain would be very useful.

Regarding the removal of Mary of Teck. In our combined tree, with me as the Root, FH reports that Mary's husband, George V is wife's 20th cousin 4 times removed. As I stated in the previous post, George V is also a blood relative of mine. So, George V is a blood relative of both me and my wife.

However, as we previously saw with Elizabeth of York, my wife's relationship to George V is taking precedence over mine in the All Relatives diagram in our combined tree.

For my wife's relationship to Mary, FH reports that Mary of Teck is 20th cousin 4 times removed of husband of Mary of Teck. (Pretty sure that means my wife has no blood line to Mary)

For my relationship to Mary, FH reports several relationships to Mary, however, only as a function of her husband (George V). For example, Robert Lee Ward is half 25th cousin 3 times removed of husband of Mary of Teck.

So, there does not appear to be any blood lines to Mary for either my wife or I. However, as noted above, my wife and I both have a blood line to George V.

So, does this shed any light on why Mary of Teck got removed as George's spouse when I ran the revised Plug-In to exclude my wife's lineage?

[LornaCraig]

I have constructed some small but odd trees to test some aspects of the plugin, as they apply to Bob’s scenario.
I think there are a couple of minor discrepancies between what it is supposed to do and what it actually does:

1. The 50% cut off for removing the youngest generations of the spouse’s line is not quite working.
If there is an even number of generations between the spouse and the common ancestor the split is not being made at the 50% point (at least, not in the trees I have constructed). And if there is an odd number of generations the split sometimes leaves a difference of more than one between the number of generations kept and removed.

I got these results (where the number of generations between the spouse and the common ancestor excludes the generations of those two themselves).
5 generations: it kept 4 and removed 1.
8 generations: it kept 5, removed 3.
9 generations: it kept 6 and removed 3.
10 generations: it kept 6 and removed 4.
11 generations: it kept 6 and removed 5
12 generations: it kept 7 and removed 5

2. If person A is a direct ancestor of the spouse and is the youngest generation to be kept (i.e. their direct descendants are removed), and A has a sibling then the sibling is kept, as expected, because they are the same generation as A. But one generation of the sibling’s descendants are also kept, making that side branch one generation longer. This may hardly matter, but seems odd.

With reference to Bob’s observations:

I am not sure why Mary of Teck is being removed, if she genuinely has no blood line connection to Bob’s wife. Admittedly she has no blood line connection to Bob either, but shouldn’t she have been retained as the spouse of someone in his bloodline?

I don’t understand why the plugin is changing the relationship between Bob and George V from half 25th cousin 4 times removed to half 25th cousin 3 times removed. FH should be computing the closest relationship between them, and there is no scenario in which that should change.

Just to be clear: the number of times ‘removed’ is the difference between a and b where a is the number of generations between one of them and the nearest common ancestor and b is the number of generations between the other one and the nearest common ancestor. So 1st cousins are in the same generation as each other, 2nd cousins are in the same generation as each , but 1st cousins once removed are one generation apart.

BTW as an example of how difficult it is to describe relationships briefly in everyday language, especially when spouses are involved in the chain, I’d like to nominate this sentence from one of Mike’s earlier posts for a prize:

"So the wife's husband is the grandson of the grandfather (i.e. spouse of the grandson's grandmother".

[tatewise]

Bob:
I will have a look at a Plugin option to choose the percentage of generations to retain when removal & retention are in conflict.

Your description of the relationships of Mary of Teck probably explain why she is removed.
George V is more closely related to your wife than he is to you.
So he will be considered a part of your wife's branch, and thus a candidate for removal.
I suspect he is on the cusp of the blood relatives 50% generations rule.
So although he is retained, all his family including Mary of Teck will be removed as they are not your blood relatives or are nearer to your wife.

I imagine some other spouse of George V must be a blood relative ancestor of your wife?

If my analysis is correct, then increasing the percentage of generations to retain should retain Mary of Teck.
That is because, although she is not a blood relative, the Plugin does retain the immediate family (spouse, parents & children) of any person who is retained in their own right, and George V should be retained in his own right with the larger percentage.

Lorna:
What you are seeing is probably the effect of the last feature of the Plugin that I've described above.
i.e. With 8 generations the oldest 4 are retained, but the immediate family is also retained, which leads to 5 generations retained.
With an odd number of generations, then one more is retained than removed, and then one immediate family generation added.

That also explains the other relatives of A's sibling being retained.

I also can't explain why the relationships change when some people are removed from the tree, unless it is to do with some blood relatives being removed. I presume the cousin numbers and removed numbers are associated with the GENS_UP and GENS_DOWN relationship codes, but have not worked out the algorithm.

[LornaCraig]

I also can't explain why the relationships change when some people are removed from the tree, unless it is to do with some blood relatives being removed.

I can imagine scenarios where there are multiple relationships and some of them might change when some people are removed, but it's unfortunate if the plugin results in the closest relationship being changed, because that's the one of most interest.

The numer of 'removeds' is reducing, which means that a generation is being added or removed somewhere, either in the direct line connecting Bob to the nearest common ancestor with George V or in the direct line connecting George V to that person. (The sideways separation remains unchanged at 25th cousin. ) The effect is to bring Bob's generation and George's generation closer to level. But in reality the closest relationship between them doesn't change at all.

[tatewise]

Try the attached All Pool Relatives Except Partner Ancestors Plugin Version 0.9 Date 01 Dec 2018.
[EDIT: Attachment deleted as now in Plugin Store.]

It adds a parameter to select a portion of direct blood relatives shared by the root person and their spouse via a common ancestor.
Set it to 0.0 to exclude them all.
Set it to 1.0 to include them all, which will retain the entire direct lineage from spouse to common ancestor, and the immediate families of that lineage, plus any descendants of the spouse's siblings. So only significant ancestral branches off that direct lineage will get removed.

It will be interesting to see if Mary of Teck is retained, and whether any direct relationships are changed when 1.0 is chosen.

None of the settings are 'sticky' so remember to set to the desired values on every run of the Plugin.

[BobWard]

Mike, I downloaded Ver 0.9 of the Plug-In and ran some more tests. Here are some simple comparison stats on the results when removing my wife's side of the tree.

As a baseline, my combined tree for my wife and I lists:
2170 Individuals
1002 Families

With your previous Ver 0.8, I got the following results:
1691 Individuals
786 Families
Mary of Teck was excluded from the database.
George V (Mary's husband) was included in the database with the closest relationship to me as half 25th cousin 3 times removed.

With Ver 0.9
0.0 setting
408 Individuals
144 Families
Both Mary of Teck and George V are missing from the database. In fact, this setting removed all my links to European royalty.

With Ver 0.9
0.5 setting
1707 Individuals
789 Families
Mary of Teck was excluded from the database.
George V is also excluded, but his father, Edward VII is included, along with a host of other links to European royalty. Edward's relationship to me is listed as half 24th cousin 4 times removed.

With Ver 0.9
1.0 setting
1809 Individuals
830 Families
Mary of Teck is included as wife's 20th cousin 4 times removed's wife.
George V is included as wife's 20th cousin 4 times removed. So, my wife's relationship to George is again taking precedence over my blood line to George.

[tatewise]

Bob, that all appears very reasonable and much as expected.

The sight differences between Ver 0.8 (effectively using 0.5) and Ver 0.9 using 0.5 is probably down to rounding errors in the calculations, but appears to confirm that Edward VII and George V are just on the 0.5 cusp. Using 0.4 should definitely exclude them, and 0.6 should definitely include them.

The Ver 0.9 using 1.0 will include your wife's lineage to the common ancestor(s) wherever it overlaps your direct blood relatives.
That is what 1.0 means ~ retain everyone who is in both your and your wife's direct blood line and their immediate families, so it includes George V and Mary of Teck.
So all your wife's relationships along that lineage will take precedence as they are the closest.
But your relationships should be displayed in Diagrams if you adopt the strategy I thought we had resolved in Display Multiple Relationships in Pedigree Diagrams (16414) that hides your wife's relationships.

I suspect that if you run Ver 0.9 using 0.9 (or 0.85 or 0.95) then a few generations will be removed near your wife (i.e. her mother) and that gap will mean your wife's relationships along that lineage cannot exist, but your blood relatives nearer the common ancestor(s) will be included such as George V and Mary of Teck, so your blood relationships will be the closest.

May I remind you that the Plugin does NOT include/exclude the relationships such as wife's 20th cousin 4 times removed's wife, which are not actually recorded anywhere in the Project. The Plugin only includes/excludes the Individual and Family records.
The relationships are composed dynamically by FH from the current Project database of Individual and Family records.

[BobWard]

Yes Mike, using a setting of 0.6 pretty much did the trick.

1728 Individuals
799 Families

Both George V & Mary of Teck are included in the All Relatives diagram, with George's relationship to me listed as half 25th cousin 3 times removed and Mary predictably being listed as half 25th cousin 3 times removed's wife.

In fact, this 0.6 setting restored the entire English royal lineage to the diagram (descending from George V and Mary) down to present-day Prince George & Princess Charlotte, which is in full agreement with my original combined tree with my wife.

So, I think this is a winner. Thanks for all the hard work you did on revising the Plug-In.