Why were several people removed from my Famous Relatives list?
When I first investigated my Famous Relative list, I noticed that John F. Kennedy, Marie Antoinette and Queen Victoria were included in the "Leaders" section of my list. I was very happy about the two ladies being there, because they represented a long suspected link (actually two) to the Stuart family of Scotland. A couple of days ago I revisited the listing only to find that Queen Victoria, Marie Antoinette, and even John F. Kennedy, were no longer listed amoung my famous ancesters. I would like to find out why they were removed, since their deletion will make it harder to trace some parts of the family tree now.
Answers
-
Anna, we received your question about famous relatives list. If the names are in your Family Tree they should come up when you do your search. You might also try a different browser and see if this brings back the names, like Mozilla Fire Fox and or Google Chrome.
Results for Famous Relatives come from the information that is available to us. It could be that your family tree—or the tree of your famous relative—isn’t large enough to make a connection. Please consider signing in and adding new information so that more connections can be made.
If you have a particular relative in mind, it could also be that the person isn’t listed in our database of famous individuals. Please accept our sincere apology for leaving him or her out. In the future, we hope to implement a system where additional celebrities can be suggested.
Information about living individuals is private and likewise excluded from the activity.
Related articles
Why are there so many people from Western cultures in Famous Relatives?
0 -
Istolk36, thank you for your comment, but these people weren't "left out" of my Famous Relative's list. They were there and then they were removed. I just want to know why. It's upsetting to me, because Marie Antoinette and Queen Victoria were both connected to my Stuart line and I've been hunting for such connections for many years. I am in the process of having my DNA tested so perhaps that will bring them back into the picture of my ancestry. Thank you again for trying to help. Take care.
0 -
Anna, concerning those missing famous relatives. Your relationship to famous people is dependent on the relationships in Family Search. If you are now missing ancestors you were linked to before, it is because someone has unlinked your family line from the family line of that famous person.
It is possible you may discover that deleted relationship if you "surf" out to the last person that shows on your Landscape (Family tree) View in Family Search. Open their Person/Detail page and examine Latest Changes. If a relationship has been deleted the record of that change will be found in Latest Changes.
You may have to explore the end person of several lines if you do not remember how you were linked to the famous person in whom you have an interest.
0 -
I was searching for this issue and ran across this thread. I had to take a break from genealogy for a while, and just noticed that some of my famous connections are missing. Specifically, individuals who were on the Mayflower are now missing from my famous relatives list. I was just wondering why. There could be others, but those I noticed right away.
0 -
As Ana pointed out "Your relationship to famous people is dependent on the relationships [recorded here ] in Family Search [Family Tree]."
Note that sometimes these links (across a VERY large number of generations) between one generation and the next, can sometimes be based on (what is later) found to be an erroneous link between two people.
Even a single inter-relationship that is "disconnected" by a FS user (for various reasons - among them the belief that the relationship is in error) could result in numerous people (even to the degree of millions of people) who were previously being recorded as "related" of Person X being no longer included.
So its not like any admin took you off some list - but (one very possible scenario is ) merely that the PATH of relationship between you and the other related person - may have been broken by someone updating the database (by disconnecting a previously connected relationship)
You may wish to make your own copy of the the relationship paths between you and some of these famous people. so that even if the path of relationship is broken at any point - you have a copy of your own document that records the exact path of the relationship. and then you would be able to go back and see the precise link that was broken and analyze why it may have been broken.
Also note DNA testing results do NOT directly affect FamilySearch Family Tree links (FamilySearch has no DNA service not place for recoding DNA test results)
Though INDIRECTLY based on DNA test results individual FamilySearch users could indeed make updates to the family tree based on the interpretation of the DNA data.
1 -
Hello, John Wayne was my cousin and now he is no longer listed under famous people why is that because I didn’t make any changes? On my mothers line there is a lot of royal people throughout Scotland, England and Ireland and Northern Ireland why are those people not listed as famous people? Why does the family tree charts only go to seven generations why not have it to ten or twelve generations just curious? On my mothers line which is atheist Daugherty to McWilliams to the Duffs and so on just that line shows a lot of people and families of royalty? [email protected] Hughie Fawcett
0 -
Hugh
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Short Answer:
You personally may have NOT made any Changes, in that Line; but, ANOTHER User/Patron may have.
ANOTHER User/Patron, can make a "Change", that MAY affect YOUR "Ancestral Lines".
There are certainly pitfalls, with the basic 'nature' and 'premise', of "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', with working, in a SINGLE "One" World "Tree"; and, such being one of them.
Technically, there is no way to STOP another User/Patron working along the SAME 'Ancestral" Lines.
Unfortunately, such CANNOT be prevented.
As, basically, we are all related.
Your "Ancestral" Lines, are most likely ALSO another User's/Patron's "Ancestral" Lines, in fact, probably, that of quite a few other Users/Patrons.
Please be aware that ...
NONE of us are PERFECT ...
We ALL make MISTAKES ...
'No', NOT everyone (ie. User/Patron) is an "Experienced" Genealogist.
Most User/Patron, are far from that.
And, MANY Users/Patrons, are VERY "Inexperienced".
I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
ps: I am also "Related" to "John WAYNE"; and, many OTHERS ...
pps: I like to NOW use, the likes of, (BYU) "RelativeFinder"; where, I can "Print" a Single Page, that Shows/Details the "Link", between, any "Famous Person"; and, myself - for Two (x2) reasons. (1) I have a PERMANENT "Copy" of such, to check/confirm; and, (2) I can use, that "Printout", to "Re-Establish", that "Link", if such is every "Served", by any 'wayward' "Change", by ANOTHER User/Patron - And, that has come in handy, on MANY occasions.
.
1 -
This is a collaborative database -- - you are just one of millions of users, any of which could have made a change or correction in any one single interrelationship in millions of people in your ancestry and that one change can cause a "disconnect" between you and that person you were previously connected to.
As to Family Tree Charts and generations - - some developer had to pick a number . . . it just couldn't be some infinite number. They picked 7 -- which is probably the most common norm (5-7 generations) across printed forms and most genealogy applications.
Seven generations is pretty normal for default pedigree charts
keep in mind thats 2 to the power of 7 ancestral lines (128 lines) this is a reasonable/common number to show in a chart. The number keeps doubling 256, 512, 1024 every generation - really balloons
going back 20 generations you would have more than one million ancestors and think of all the processing power to do that (at the expense of all the other users of the system).
7 generation is simply the default.
also note that is for the printed charts but the dynamic chart that is at the core of navigating family tree - continues to allow you to go back as many generations as you wish - on a given set of lines but alternate lines drop off from view as you go back simply because it is designed to do such so that it optimize the limited real estate of the screen. (whats the point of showing a million (or even a thousand names) on a single screen?
As to Royalty
One could argue that anyone in royalty is famous - but once you hit a royal line with one person most all the ancestors of that one person are also royalty so again the numbers beyond that would just explode. Also Most people have to go back more than 12 generations, often much more, to hit a royal line. (probably beyond the generational limit of the famous ancestor checker) Again you have to think about all the processing power to churn through literally millions of ancestors if you go back that far.
Also if you really want to get a chart greater than 7 generations look up Relative Finder or Puzilla on the Internet.
0
