Need to be added to project

oh, I see, ok.,

I did not get angry, no, so dont worry. it was only fun.

LOL! Actually I addressed the comment rather politly. I enjoy connecting with others on here and finding information. If I had addressed the comment in the "southern" fight that I have I probably would have been banned from Geni. All is good.

@Pamela Compton

Sorry, I can't figure out how clarifying a meaning can be a big deal.

The possibility was, you meant he was not in a direct line to another person in the line, which is why I asked the question.

@Judith A. Loubris Mc Carthy

I have often heard the term, "direct descendant" and I am actually trying to determine if there is some meaning to the term. I cannot see how anyone can be indirectly descended. The term seems redundant to me. Thus not a direct descendant would also be redundant.

Robert Klahn: Often, I suspect, people use the term "direct descendant" to mean that the ancestor will show up when you use the Geni "horizontal tree" view. (i.e.: 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, ...).

Any other relationship is "indirect" -- such as my relationship to an aunt or uncle, or my aunt's husband's parents, ...).

Can anybody tell me why we have profiles like "God" here? He is about my 80th grandfather, it makes me quite upset.... You think the whole Geni is just a joke.... it is not very serious... or maybe it is a joke and I don´t have the right sense of humor! I can not tell anybody about this page, it is embarrasing if somebody find out it, I´m very sure I´m not "direct descendant"! Are all kind of Gods here? Muslim, Hindu, Buddha.....

Robert, people sometimes talk about collateral ancestors and collateral descendants, as well as direct. As Dan says, it just means an ancestral aunt or uncle.

Kaija Tammelin ... I will refer you to the project http://www.geni.com/projects/Biblical-Tree/38 and also to this note in one discussion: http://www.geni.com/discussions/114261?msg=826862 that explains why such a profile exists on Geni.

OK! I would like to find Fred Flintstone too, he is eldest.....and we have a lot in common! ; )

When I use direst descendant I mean mother father, uncles and unts grand parent and so on . Not 25 million times removed cousin!

In other word a direct part in a certain line.

I'm glad to see that I am not the only one that uses the term "direct". Meaning point A to B. I straight line of ancestors.

From my point of view a "Direct Ancestor" or "Blood Ancestor" is an "Ancestor".

If they are not a "Direct Ancestor" or "Blood Ancestor" then they are NOT an "Ancestor".

The reason we have the term "collateral ancestor" in English is that people can have collateral ancestors ;)

I am sorry but I do not understand what this discussion is about. Are we all related to the people on the list? I just checked a few, with the following result...
Saint Arnoul, Bishop of Metz is your 38th great grandfather.
Alpais is your 36th great grandmother
Sprota (Adela) de Senlis is your 29th great grandmother.
Dode (Clotilde) de Metz is your 38th great grandmother
Heinrich I 'der Vogler' von Sachsen is your 30th great grandfather
Adele de Vermandois is your 29th great grandmother.

Saint Arnoul, Bishop of Metz is your 38th great grandfather.
Alpais is your 36th great grandmother
Sprota (Adela) de Senlis is your 29th great grandmother.
Dode (Clotilde) de Metz is your 38th great grandmother
Heinrich I 'der Vogler' von Sachsen is your 30th great grandfather
Adele de Vermandois is your 29th great grandmother.Foulques V le Jeune, comte de Anjou et roi de Jérusalem is your 28th great grandfather
Ansbertus / Ausbert de Moselle is your 39th great grandfatherArnoaldus, Bishop of Metz is your 39th great grandfather.
Blithildis de Cologne is your 39th great grandmother
Saint Itta de Metz is your 38th great grandmother.
Geoffrey "Grisgonelle" Comte d'Anjou is your 29th great grandfather.

I thought the project was great for me. Looked at it and said, mmm, those are all familiar. Checked 'em all and all but 10 or 15 were GGFs or GGMs. Made a spreadsheet from the data and now have a sorted list of about 7 pages of GGs, Thanks to all who contruibuted. If you don't appreciate the effort of others, please don't whine!

Dan Cornett
If you are related to Birger Jarl Magnusson then you and I are related. Unless it is through the same line it is not a direct line relationship. My relationship to him is indirect.

I do understand what you say about showing up on a direct line, what I never understood is how anyone could be anything but a direct ancestor.

However, I also realize our modern thinking did not always apply. I do wonder about the origin of the term "direct descendant". I am 65 years old, and I remember when a child born outside the marriage would often be rejected from the family. Now few of us consider such a child in a negative way. In the very line that leads to this discussion I see children born to a concubine. I see Antony and Cleopatra in the line, and they were not married when the children were born.

So, while I realize few today think in those terms, I wonder if the term "direct descendant" was used to isolate those who could not claim legitimacy under the rules that existed previously.

So, the meaning today is redundant, but was it always?

Justin Swanström

This is what I don't understand. How can you have a collateral ancestor?

To refer so someone as an ancestral aunt might be reasonable, but after 70 GGFs it would seem his aunt or uncle's line would not be descended in any way from his children. Therefore they are not any kind of ancestor.

My experience with "collateral" lines is, they are only identified in reference to some important person's descendants. Just as the descendants of King Henry VIII reign in England today, there are those who are cousins who are part of a collateral line. IOW, a relationship but a less important line. I just realized, I am part of a collateral line from Henry VIII. I don't recall him in the direct line. Yet that would not matter if I met someone who was in a direct line from him, but collateral to the current House of Windsor. Neither one of us gets any royal prerogatives.

Those are the reasons I am trying to clarify the meaning. Either you are descended or you are not. I want to clarify the distinctions.

"James Earl Lambertus"

I didn't check them all, I started with one a cousin, and traced back to my line, then further on. As a result I went through a half dozen or more countries, more like a dozen, and 2,500 years.

What is amazing is how easily you can trace your ancestry through countries you never realized, such as Saudi Arabia for a German/Irishman like myself. And Syria and numerous countries I have heard of but didn't even necessarily realize they were not invented in some fictional story. And some I never did hear of before. Though they are more likely city states than countries as we know them.

My daughter came up on Skype while I was doing that, and I told her about it. When I told her about Kings and Bishops and Saints in the line she asked if I believed all that.

I told her to do the math. Every generation involves two parents for every ancestor. That doubles your number of ancestors for every generation. A 64th GGF if 64 generations back from your Grandfather. That's doubling 64 times, or two to the 64th power. Which is 18quintillion ancestors, likely more than the entire population of the human race throughout human history and pre-history. In other words, if anyone has surviving descendants today you are probably one of them. And you are probably descended from anyone you can point to two thousand years ago, king or emperor or commoner. Only the commoner's records don't survive, royalty and the powerful do, sometimes.

So, it's not all the impressive to be descended from Antony and Cleopatra, but it is interesting to see it in the line.

And your collateral line becomes your direct line if you trace them both back far enough.

While were talking about direct descendants, Can anyone with great experience in ancestry help me figure out who my "Winton" family descendants are? I have been searching and searching and we seem to disappear pre- John Winton 1683-1767. I would really like to know whom, I have descended from, without having to go through my aunts and uncles. If anybody has knowledge of the Winton family please help! I have all of the knowledge and records that I can find posted in pictures on John Winton's profile! Here is the link if anyone is up for a challenge. :)
Lieut. John Winton

Thanks Sincerely, Ian Winton

Since it all seems to be about geometry, perhaps we should ask the managers of Euclid to get his opinion

Robert,

I think you might be over-thinking the question. In a very specific sense, most people understand the word "ancestors" to mean our own direct ancestors.

Yet, the English language also allows us to use the word generically to mean something like "predecessors". It's not uncommon to hear someone say "when our ancestors founded this country". We don't take it literally to mean that every person listening had ancestors who were in the US in 1776 (although perhaps some people on the far right politically do mean that).

In English we also use the word Ancestors to translate things like the word Australian aborigines use collectively for the predecessors who founded their culture.

In English and American law, the word Ancestor traditionally meant the person from whom you inherited land -- so an Ancestor could be your child, a brother or sister, aunt or uncle, nephew or niece, cousin, etc. Modern courts have generally held that when Ancestor is used to mean a forebear, it includes both direct ancestors and collateral ancestors unless the context gives a stricter meaning.

Similarly, in general usage the English language has the term "collateral ancestors" to mean those people who are back in the family tree but who are not "direct ancestors".

None of this means anything more than a very simple idea -- if people can conceive a category, it's eventually going to be named something by someone. And, that term can pass into popular usage if it's useful.

There is no shortage of "language police" trying to preserve the purity of the English language, but my philosophy is that once a word or term has a meaning that is readily understandable, it's a done deal. At that point, I stop arguing ;)

To me an Ancestor is a family member who came before me. Usually way before me. I am decended from such and such ancestor or ancestors. My nationality is where I am born , American, USA American, unless I change nationalities but that 's a whole nother animals. My race is ny race, white and Native American . I am decended from in my case once we get fair enough back, English, French, Dutch, Scottish maybe a little Irish.My religion is Protestant.That is how I understand the terminology.

Private User

I just added your (nicely done!) profile to

http://www.geni.com/projects/Ulster-Scots-people/8806

You might want to also add him to this project & repeat your query, starting a new discussion:

http://www.geni.com/projects/Brick-Wall-Workshop/13085

Alas, Euclid does not seem to be anyone's ancestor, progenitor, forefather, or predecessor, collateral or otherwise ...

More to the point, neither is Hypatia of Alexandria ;)

Thanks, Erica! Any help is always appreciated on my behalf. My family of ancestors of John Winton and Mary McClellan, have spent years on tracing our roots, I have a feeling with the technology of the internet and software available today, that we may be able to finally find a missing piece of this puzzle!
Thanks, Ian Winton

Justin Swanström You have just given the best explanation I have seen. When working on geneology I normally just think in literal terms of parent child descent, since that is what I am tracing. I do make note of other family members, back to a certain extent. However, since one line I just traced gave me a 9th cousin 70 times removed it does seem to get a bit extreme. Such as this one.

Joda ben Joanan is your 33rd great grandfather's wife's first cousin twice removed's wife's father's wife's husband's wife's sister's husband's great grandfather.

On the other hand...

In looking at the Biblical project on Geni I found two listings for the same name, Zurubbabel. One is listed as the royal Jewish heir and the 23rd descendant from David. The other is supposedly the one listed in Luke in the Genealogy of Jesus, which is confusing.

The Biblical project has a link to the Bible Cheat sheet:

http://wiki.geni.com/index.php/Bible_Tree_Cheat_Sheet

Which has this entry.

The one MAJOR difference between the list in Luke, and the traditional line followed in the Geni tree, is that Luke has the first Exilarch Zerubbabel, "son of" Shealtiel, as descendant of this obscure Davidic line, while other, earlier sources have Zerubbabel as a direct near-descendant (great-grandson) of Jechoniah, the next-to-last King of the House of David. Luke's version does NOT make any sense, as "his" Zerubbabel would be a "nobody", having no-real claim to this Line/Title. As such, the "main-line" tree follows Luke as far Shealtiel, and then has a pointer to the "main" Zerubbabel, where the line is continued, through his son Rhesa.

This refers to an "obscure Davidic line" and a "direct near-descendent" (close in time). Oh, and the names have multiple spellings depending on sources, and it's all tied in knots as far as I am concerned. I have been working on unraveling it and the condtrdictions are rife.

Which is one reason to be very literal when doing genealogy, though being free with the word usage for literary purposes can be considered under literary license.