Genealogy Chat

Technically it means a major upgrade to the database so is probably not cost effective.

Many people, myself included, use FTM for our prime record, which does handle multiple relationships, and upload a gedcom onto GR, so I'm not that concerned.

Low priority for me.

I agree Paul. I emailed GR about it several times way back in 2003 and they replied it had been passed on to their technical department.

Four years and many tree upgrades later, this most essential of features still isn't there.

Given the nature of my son's tree, I will probably eventually end up putting it online somewhere like tribal pages or ancestry. Maybe I will just add a few key names to my GR tree then refer interested contacts to that other detailed tree.

As my son's tree includes more than a handful of people of historic importance, I want to be absolutely certain of its accuracy before it is put online in any case.

Yours is a perfect example of why GR should look at a design fault in their system that members have been on about for ages.

Spurred on by the Charlewood feature on WDYTYA, I finally started buiding up a skeleton tree for my son's paternal side. I am SO glad I decided not to even attempt to build the tree on GR - it would have been near impossible.

Having entered into FTM all the known direct ancestors, spotting rather a lot of cousin marriages on the way, I now have an interesting result.

My son's father is not only his father, he is also his 4th cousin once removed, his 6th cousin, and also his 5th cousin twice removed!!

At least no one appears to have married their own sibling - yet!