Name gatherers on Ancestry......an amazing complicated link

[jess5athome]

....Legacy family tree tells me that my wife Susan relationship to William....William is Susan's 3rd cousin 3 times removed wifes aunts husbands great grand nephews wife's grandauntshusbands father.
Are you still with me.......
Ringrose

 

Wow!! you could start a new "One Liner" with that.

Frank.

[susan j]

Yes, it makes me mad, .....I had one chap who went from only a few people to a few thousand in less than a week.....what is the point??? I never get in touch with people who have thousands of people on their tree....it isn't possibile. On the other hand I have come across some great people who are genuine relatives.
Susan

[sunflower]

I don't agree with that Susan.  I have thousands on my tree, but I did start researching 30 years ago.  Retired 10 years ago I have done my husbands line, brother in laws, sister in laws etc. etc.
I hope not everyone dismisses my tree because of that reason.

Carol

[KGarrad]

I agree with Carol

I have just short of 3000 people on my tree, which combines mum's and dad's trees.
But I do have 2 lines back to the mid 1500's!

I like to have bride's parents names, when they marry into the main family line.
Sometimes essential due to the number of cousins marrying into the same lines!

Also I have one line, Vanstones, that I simply had to find as many as possible due to the utter confusion of other trees! It didn't help that, on the 1851 census, 44% of Vanstone/Vanston people shared just 7 forenames!!

[bugbear]

I don't agree with that Susan.  I have thousands on my tree, but I did start researching 30 years ago.  Retired 10 years ago I have done my husbands line, brother in laws, sister in laws etc. etc.
I hope not everyone dismisses my tree because of that reason.

Carol

I'm just shy of 1,000 at the moment, and I can show good cites for every connection.

I could easily "name gather" a coupla' thousand more, I haven't chased down all the connections (and never will).

 BugBear

[LizzieW]

I use Legacy and find it very good (lots of other Rootschatters use it too), but I've never come up with a relationship like that before, even when I've tried with what I think are totally unconnected ancestors.  It usually advises me that there is no relationship.  If I try to connect an ancestor of my husband's to me, it just advises that the person is the (whatever relationship) of my husband.  I think the person who gave that long and incomprehensible explanation of a relationship has made it up.

Lizzie

[wrjones]

Whether or not the person you contacted is a relative,it would have been far easier for them to use Ancestry's own description of relationships.He could then have explained any relationship he has with both Susan and William!

Regards
William Russell Jones.

[Ruskie]

I suspect this might be an error of some sort. (you would hope so anyway  )

Legacy family tree tells me that my wife Susan relationship to William....William is Susan's 3rd cousin 3 times removed wifes aunts husbands great grand nephews wife's grandauntshusbands father.

I think there should be a full stop after "removed", and the rest of it is just gobbledegook mistakenly included .... somehow - the person obviously didn't read what they'd written before they pressed [send].

I think you should contact them again to double check. 

[Ringrose]

No way am I going to contact them....Can they honestly think I would take them seriously...bet they can't even work out what they have written to me.Ive never used Legacy so can't comment on it .
Anyway thought it would give a laugh to some of you.
Ringrose