* Query to get just one line back

[tparkhill]

I need to do a bunch of queries that trace family lines back, That is, if I pick say "John Smith" or "Mary Smith", I want to limit output to all the Smith named ancestors (father smith, grandfather smith, great grandfather smith, etc.).

I am guessing that I need to add one more constraint to the "Ancestors" query. OR
Looks like I could use a modification of "Shared Y Chromosome" query, "Exclude Unless" "Relationship" contains "father". But then I need to use the father of each woman, and add them back in.
Any chance there is a slicker way?

thanks!
Trent

[tatewise]

Yes, starting from the Ancestors query, I think the Rows tab, General tab, filter you need to add is:
Exclude unless...
=IsTrue( FieldText( Individual(["Starting Person"]), 'INDI.NAME:SURNAME' ) = %INDI.NAME:SURNAME% )
is true

i.e. Exclude the Ancestor unless the Starting Person surname equals their surname.

[Little.auk]

The Surname approach can be problematic in a couple of ways,

If the Surname is common (e.g. Smith) there could be other male Smiths in the family tree who are not in the paternal line you want, and who would not be filtered out by Relationship includes "father"

There is also another scenario involving illegitimate births, where a child takes their mother's surname. The line will break at that point, even if the father is known - in this case there would be a gap for that generation and the mother's father would appear in the following generation - the line would have switched to maternal.

If you are looking for the true paternal line of father, grandfather, great grandfather etc. then using filters based on the Anhental number will work better. Your "Starting Person" will always have Ahnentafel =1, and from there the Ahnentafel No. for each generation of the paternal line will be twice that of the previous generation - i.e. father = 2, grandfather = 4, g-grandfather = 8, etc.

Using the Ancestors query, a simple series of Row filters as below covers 10 generations, including the "Starting Person" (equals 1) -
_

Ancestors query filter.jpg (66.55 KiB) Viewed 1358 times

_
It is easy to add more generations, just double the value each time
The result is shown below.
_

Ancestors query result.jpg (70.09 KiB) Viewed 1358 times

_
This is my parental ancestry, my 2xg grandfather and my 3xg grandfather were both illegitimate

The Ahnental approach can be easily adapted to create the maternal line, using the sequence 1, 3, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 etc. (double the previous result and add one). I don't think that this can be easily achieved any other way!

[tatewise]

Yes Peter, I agree that would be a very reliable method for listing just the paternal (or maternal) line.
That may even be what Trent actually wants rather than the Surname filter method.

The only gotcha I can think of is with adoptive/foster parents where it is crucial for the birth parents to be listed before the non-birth parents.

[Little.auk]

Based on Trent's example, that seemed to be what he was looking for.

Regarding adoptions and fostering - I have a couple of adoptions in my tree and I have the child Relationship field filled as "b" for birth parents and "a" for adoptive parents as per image below.

In my FH project FH assigns the Ahnentafel numbers correctly to the birth parents with these fields set, however - I have also tested by removing these relationships, and they are still assigned correctly in the query.
_

Realtionship.jpg (172.71 KiB) Viewed 1304 times

_
Going off on a tangent here - regarding images in posts. How do you put a blank line between text and the image? The return button displays a blank line as I compose the post, but this disappears when submit it. I have tried adding a space after the return, but this doesn't work, so I have resorted to using an inconspicuous character such as underscore. Is there an alternative?

[LornaCraig]

Based on Trent's example, that seemed to be what he was looking for.

I must admit I'm still not clear exactly what Trent was asking for because near the end of his post he said "But then I need to use the father of each woman, and add them back in. "

Regarding adoptions and fostering - I have a couple of adoptions in my tree and I have the child Relationship field filled as "b" for birth parents and "a" for adoptive parents....

In my FH project FH assigns the Ahnentafel numbers correctly to the birth parents with these fields set, however - I have also tested by removing these relationships, and they are still assigned correctly in the query.

Mike's point was that the birth parents need to be listed before the non-birth parents. The order of the Parents families can be changed in the All tab.

Going off on a tangent here - regarding images in posts. How do you put a blank line between text and the image? The return button displays a blank line as I compose the post, but this disappears when submit it. I have tried adding a space after the return, but this doesn't work, so I have resorted to using an inconspicuous character such as underscore. Is there an alternative?

I find that if you add at least two blank lines after the return tab the space is retained.

[Little.auk]

Mike's point was that the birth parents need to be listed before the non-birth parents. The order of the Parents families can be changed in the All tab.

Looking at the All tab for an Ancestor who was adopted I can't find how to change the order of parents.
I have found it!!!!!

How does FH determine this sequence?

[tatewise]

In Peter's latest screenshot he shows 1st mother Ada with child Linda Jane as a=adopted.
Yet he claims the Ahnentafel numbers are allocated correctly to the birth parents with these fields set and by removing these relationships they are still assigned correctly in the query.
So in this case the birth mother Maisie would be assigned an Ahnentafel number and Ada not assigned a number.
Peter, can you please confirm that as I think you are mistaken?

To change the parent order you can also use the small black arrows on the Spouse tab as in your screenshot.
The default order is often the order you enter them but can be auto-sorted based on the Marriage Dates.
See FHUG KB Sorting Children, Spouses & Facts into Date Order.

[LornaCraig]

Mike,

You are making an assumption that Masie (2nd wife of James William Powell, or possibly 1st wife if they have been recorded in the wrong order) is the birth mother of Linda Jane Powell. We don’t know that. Linda may have a completely different set of birth parents who may be recorded before the adopting parents.

[Little.auk]

So in this case the birth mother Maisie would be assigned an Ahnentafel number and Ada not assigned a number.
Peter, can you please confirm that as I think you are mistaken?

Lorna is correct Mike - your assumption that Maisie is the birth mother is not right, in fact Maisie never had any children.

Ada was James' first wife and they were Jane's adoptive parents. Masie was his second wife, but he was her first husband - they were both in their seventies when they married. As none of the three were Jane's birth parents, none of them are assigned Ahnentafel numbers!

Regarding the Spouse tab, I treat the tab order as priority rather than chronology and always move the direct line spouse to the left hand tab position. This is because the tab position determines the spouse hierarchy - left hand spouse = SPOU[1]. It makes queries a bit more straightforward.

In most cases this is chronological, but I have a few instances where it is the second spouse in the left hand tab position.

[tatewise]

Ok, my mistake. I assumed the screenshot was in support of your statement regarding Ahnentafel numbers always being allocated to birth parents and that a=adopted settings might have a part to play.

Lorna and I both believe that it is the 1st 'Parent family' of the Child (as shown in the All tab) that is assigned the Ahnentafel numbers and a=adopted, f=foster, and b=birth have no effect.

[Little.auk]

Lorna and I both believe that it is the 1st 'Parent family' of the Child (as shown in the All tab) that is assigned the Ahnentafel numbers and a=adopted, f=foster, and b=birth have no effect.

On that you are correct - I was assuming that FH was smarter than it is! What I put in the Relationship box has no effect on the Ahnentafel assignment, but if I move James and Ada to being the 1st 'Parent Family' does.

Just a note on adoption - it is quite unusual for a birth parent to be a parent in an adoptive family (e.g. James and Maisie), but it does happen. I have one such relationship in my family tree.

I have changed the names here, but --- Mary Smith had an illegitimate child registered George Smith. Mary kept George and several years later married John Jackson. John then adopted George, who officially became George Jackson.

Because his surname changed as part of the adoption process you will not find a birth record for George using the 'Jackson' surname. For most adoptions both given and surnames are changed, and as, until fairly recently, the identity of the birth parents was kept secret, finding birth families is not easy.

[Little.auk]

The only gotcha I can think of is with adoptive/foster parents where it is crucial for the birth parents to be listed before the non-birth parents.

Mike, this seems to be one type of out of sequence data that the FH Re-order Out-of-Sequence Data Tool can't fix!

[tatewise]

I have not checked but you are probably correct.
The tool relies on dates to perform the sorting. If an entity does not have a relevant date it cannot be sorted.

Facts are sorted according to their Date field, but also by their Normal Time Frame setting, which is time related.

Spouses are sorted only by their Marriage event Dates. I don't think any other fact dates are used.

Children are sorted only by their Birth (and perhaps Baptism) event Dates.

Multiple Parent Family entries would not appear to have anything to sort on.

[Little.auk]

I didn't make it clear in my last post - I did test the re-order tool by making the adoptive parents the "1st Parent Family" - it didn't flag up this anachronism.

[tatewise]

You are correct. FH does not seem to take the Child-Parent Relationship into account for anything.
As I said, sorting is only determined by Dates and Normal Time Frame settings.

You could report such problems to CP via http://www.calico-pie.com/osticket/open.php.
i.e. Sorting of Parent Family order and Ahnentafel numbers.

[LornaCraig]

You are correct. FH does not seem to take the Child-Parent Relationship into account for anything.

That's true in the context of Ahnentafel numbers but it's worth noting that FH doesn't ignore the relationship completely. It is taken into account when calculating DNA relationships, so it is definitely important to record non-biological relationships as such.

[tatewise]

So that inconsistency should be mentioned in the report.

[Little.auk]

Just to say I have just raised the Ahnentafel issue with FH Support - I have not got a ticket number yet.
Ticket number is #296612

As I was drafting the message, I realised that I had overlooked the most problematic (and very common) adoption scenario!

In a lot of adoptions, the birth mother's identity is not known .

So, the only "parents" listed will be the adoptive ones - who will, therefore, be Parental Family[1]!

In that case, the current Ahnentafel number generation algorithm, based purely on the parent hierarchy, has no way of recognising and excluding these non-direct line relationships.

I will post the response when I get it.

[ColeValleyGirl]

In a lot of adoptions, the birth mother's identity is not known .

So, the only "parents" listed will be the adoptive ones - who will, therefore, be Parental Family[1]!

Unless you create a birth family with an unnamed parent?

[Gowermick]

In a lot of adoptions, the birth mother's identity is not known .

So, the only "parents" listed will be the adoptive ones - who will, therefore, be Parental Family[1]!

Unless you create a birth family with an unnamed parent?

Like I do with illegitimate children’s father, when just mother is known

[Little.auk]

In a lot of adoptions, the birth mother's identity is not known .

So, the only "parents" listed will be the adoptive ones - who will, therefore, be Parental Family[1]!

Unless you create a birth family with an unnamed parent?

True - but that should not be necessary just to make Ahnentafel numbers work correctly!

[davidf]

In that case, the current Ahnentafel number generation algorithm, based purely on the parent hierarchy, has no way of recognising and excluding these non-direct line relationships.

Possibly playing devil's advocate:

Can anyone quote an authority for Ahnentafel Numbers that says the "Ancestor Table" must be based only on birth relationships?

For current usage I can see the value in it being so for DNA investigations - which can then "prove the table wrong", either due to adoptions or unrecognised non-paternity events.

But when Ahnentafel Numbers were being developed, surely it was to display the "claimed ancestry" which could be in ignorance or full knowledge of adoptions or non-paternity events?

I can see occasions when we, modern day genealogists, may want to use a numbering system that either does or does not recognise adoptions and non-paternity events? (Let's avoid explicit mixed mode for the time being - but recognising that the further back we go the more likely that is).

[tatewise]

Try a Google search for Ahnentafel Numbers and you will find multiple references that all talk about "direct line ancestors" and "pedigree charts" that IMO very strongly imply birth relationships.

[davidf]

This devil is going to continue to "advocate" on two grounds:

1) When Ahnentafel numbers were developed (16th century?) adoptions and non-paternity events were not unknown but they were private and often unacknowledged and people's "claimed pedigrees" would often/usually not acknowledge them. The "direct paternal line" was the series of links up the left hand side and the "direct maternal line" was the series of links up the right hand side - the quality, even truth, of those links notwithstanding?

2) What is a "direct line"? One that is not in-direct? (i.e. a cousin - up the tree and back down again - or an in-law - across a publicly recognised marriage). But the relationship between spouses was pretty direct - with some in-laws the "kinship" may be disputed, just as there are some (usually distant) relations "through adoption" who may dispute "kinship" ("the parents can decide to make the little bastard their son, but they can't make him my nephew").

Was my mother's relationship to her (adoptive) father "direct"? If you are taking a modern purely "DNA based" view of genealogy, no it wasn't - but the relationship to her birth-parents was not "direct" it was severed by court order (and expunged from publicly available records) - whilst the relationship to her adoptive parents was direct per the adoption order (should I push my luck and say it was "directed by the court"?).

What does it mean to "be an ancestor"? Is it (now) just DNA, when in theory, if you go back enough generations (assuming no adoptions or NPEs) outside the "direct" paternal line and the "direct" maternal line you could have no DNA in common? Or is it nothing more than a chain of acknowledged parent-child relationships were some links may be less strong than others?