Is there a way of getting a list of people related to me?
I am currently using the Rootstech cousins list, which will cease to be available from1st June. I am finding this a great boon to my research, and would like to understand (1) if a similar list, (without of course the living cousins displayed), is available and (2) if more than one option, which is the better.
I like to work from lists. In fact, the cousins list was ideal. If there is something similar but which gives a clickable list of deceased people in the tree - preferably in order of closeness of relationship - please point me to it.
Answers
-
Shirley Elrick,
Such a list sounds useful. While I am not aware of a single list of near relatives, the following might be helpful to you:
You could use the "Descendancy View" for each of your grandparents. This would give you lists of relatives who are closely related to you.
Similarly, you can view the descendants of each of your great-grandparents, which would show you relatives who are closely related to you (though not as closely as the descendants of your grandparents).
Note: Descendancy View is available through the website; it is not currently available in the Family Tree App; if you are using a phone or tablet, you can still access the descendancy view by visiting FamilySearch.org in a web browser (such as Chrome or Safari) on your device.
Here's another idea:
You can "follow" the relatives who are closely related to you, and then recent changes to any/all of them will appear in a single list in your "Following" page. A drawback to this for you: there isn't currently a way to sort them by closeness of relation to you. You can sort them by last name, and as you become familiar with your relatives, perhaps you can quickly recognize who is closely related to you. See also the article, "How do I view all the people in Family Tree I am following?" (Again, the app doesn't currently include the "following" list.)
Finally, you might consider a software program such as RootsMagic in which you can create additional reports and lists for your relatives.
1 -
Because of the way relationship is documented in FamilySearch, I found the Rootstech list to be not very useful at all. The default relationship between a child and parents is "add relationship", so all possible relationships are treated equalo. If you don't edit that and go in to set the biological option, it stays up in the air. And when you do make a point to establish correct relationships, it is ignored. My first 2 closest relatives in the rootstech list were not related to me at all (that I can tell). One of my great grandmothers lost her mother early in life and was raised in another family. Even though 1) her relationship to that couple is set to "guardianship" and her own parents as "biological" and 2) the preferred parents are selected to be the birth set, Roots tech ignored that line and said my #1 closest relative was a descendent of the guardians. Even now the relationship finder says the guardian couple male is my "2nd great grandfather." He is NOT.
Thus, this feature is not consistent and not helpful.
0 -
@Gail Swihart Watson I can certainly understand how you might think that some of the details on how FamilySearch calculates relationships are not helpful for your particular situation. But it is definitely consistent. The key things to understand are:
- All relationships are included as possibilities. There is no distinction made between biological, adopted, foster, etc. parents.
- As a corollary of the first point, preferred relationships are not a factor in calculating relationships.
- The shortest relationship path through a common ancestor is shown.
That's the simple answer. I understand that some people may not like all parental relationships included (but others do).
0 -
Alan E. Brown You are right. People don't like all parental relationships included in relationship finders because they assume these relationship finders will be limited to - ahem - people who are related to you. Thus, I stand by my statement that this feature in Rootstech is not helpful.
0 -
@Gail Swihart Watson I'm not sure why you would say I'm right and then proceed to completely disagree with me. But you're welcome to your opinion -- as I said, I understand that different people may have different opinions on this matter. I would not presume to speak for how all people want this to work.
For my family, there are multiple cases where an adopted relationship is the true family relationship. I absolutely want to see how I am related to others through those relationships. The biological relationship in those cases is interesting, but not nearly as important. If FamilySearch were to ignore the adopted relationships, I would be very disappointed.
I would note also that the 2023 version of Relatives at RootsTech had a feature for filtering relationships by Family Line. That allowed users to choose a particular set of parents or grandparents (e.g., a biological set of parents vs. an adopted set of parents). Then your relationship to any of the set of filtered set of relatives would be shown with the constraint that it would go through that set of parents/grandparents.
0 -
James, thanks for replying. I already access each of the things you suggested, including running my own Database ap (The Master Genealogist). It was that 'list' of cousin matches that I found super useful. Matbe the owners of the Onw World Tree will take this on board as a entry in a wish list?
0 -
I said this because you carefully explained how and why all the "cousins" found in this list aren't really going to be cousins after all. If I'm looking for cousins, I don't want people descending from step parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, ward parents, etc. Those are NOT relatives, unless they are related through another connection. I know this is a pretty low blow, but it would be nice to have what Ancestry has. They automatically exclude non-biological relationships when determining common ancestors. And when they consider how you are related to a DNA match you are given all the possible connections. Here is an example of how they indicate an adopted relative of mine is related to one of her DNA matches. She came from an extremely endogenous community. This is much more useful, and if FamilySearch would hard wire biological as a default parent-child relationship until someone updates a relationship to step, ward etc, FamilySearch, too, could provide multiple connections to you with each biological cousin that has multiple connections.
0 -
@Gail Swihart Watson Clearly we have different viewpoints on what a relative is. You seem to take the position that only a blood relative is really a relative, whereas I believe that a person adopted into a family is truly part of the family.
I would like to clarify that I never "carefully explained how and why all the 'cousins' found in this list aren't really going to be cousins after all." First of all, the vast majority of the cousins found in Relatives at RootsTech lists of relatives are blood relatives -- I'm sure you misspoke when you wrote that, and you would agree that those blood relatives are indeed cousins.
The point where we differ is on the topic of adoptive relationships. I have carefully explained how in my opinion people who are related to me through adoptive relationships are truly my cousins. I value an adopted relationship as a true family relationship, and so following those lines to establish cousin relationships will lead me to people who are really cousins. Some of my dear cousins happened to join the family through adoption. To me, they are 100% my cousins. I would hope that everyone would treat them that way, and never say that they aren't really part of the family.
I certainly appreciate the value of DNA analysis. It is a wonderful genealogical tool, and can show us some information about our blood relatives that can be gathered in no other way. Ancestry DNA and other similar services enable us to do this research. In the context of DNA analysis, I wholeheartedly agree with your position.
0 -
Alan E. Brown Believe it or not, I feel we are getting closer. So I have a number of adopted relatives. My parents' generation, who were young adults after WW II, seemed to feel adopting was important, so there are a number of us in my generation who are adopted. You are right, we are family, and we share in the legal rights as well. However, the adopted relatives could care less about my 3rd great grandmother. It's not THEIR 3rd great grandmother. In fact, they have their OWN set of 3rd great grandmothers, who took an active part in the story of who they are while MY 3rd great grandmother had NO part in their story. My path and their path have intersected for life - but in genealogical terms that is very short: only a lifetime or two. My children and those of my birth and adopted relatives in my generation are all very close.
Another important thing; we absolutely do not impose our heritage on our adopted family members because that is very, very wrong. They all have their own heritage, which as a family historian, I have been tasked to help uncover. I have an adopted sister and have spoken on the phone with her birth mother about her family history. I have spoken several times with the husband of one of her birth half sisters about their family history. My adopted sister has 3 sets of parents on the world tree: her adoptive parents (my birth parents) her birth dad and his spouse and her birth mom and her spouse. I have several adopted cousins, and one is very intent on building his birth tree. It's because that is where the story of HIM lies. NOT with the adoptive family who raised him, loved him and gave him loving siblings and cousins for life.
Now. Getting back to my original point. If my adopted sister were to register for Roots tech and find as her closest relative a 5th cousin descending from one of her adopted parent's ancestors, is she supposed to get excited? No. Nor was I excited that the #1 "closest" relative to me was actually descended from the foster parents of one of my great grandmothers. THAT's my point. Don't call it a relative finder.
0 -
@Gail Swihart Watson Thank you for the discussion. I'm sure we're never going to completely agree on this topic, but it was good to get closer.
0
