Relationship Finder

+2 votes
194 views
Recently, whenver i use Relationship Finder, the Most Recent Common Ancestor of the two persons compared turns always out to be a woman, an ancestress, instead of an ancestor, as before. Upon closer look, i always find that the husband is also a MRCA of the two persons being compared. Why is this happening? This makes it seem as if the two persons being compared are descended from an unwed mother, or from the same ancestress but two different ancestors. Why is this?
in WikiTree Tech by Albertus Robert Casimir Jung G2G6 Mach 1 (10.9k points)

1 Answer

+4 votes
I have always seen the relationship finder show one common ancestor at the top of the page.  It used to show a male ancestor, but now shows a female ancestor, if there is a common couple.  If you scroll down a little there is a box with a drop down menu showing all the common ancestors that were found, and you can select a different one to be shown in the top box.

Personally, I don't think this implies there was an unwed mother.  A woman could be your only common ancestor if the woman had more than one husband and you and the other person descend from different husbands.  When the common ancestors are a couple, it would give a fuller picture to show both names, but if only one name is shown then it is an arbitrary choice of which one to show.
by Paige Kolze G2G6 Mach 5 (54.3k points)
But why the change to showing an ancestress only instead of an ancestor as before, and which is much more logical, as it is HIS surname that the generation before him bear? I wish that this strange change would be turned back. Yes, it would be best indeed if both the husband and the wife were shown, as both of them are the MRCA. But the male ancestor should always be the default ancestor - because of the surname - if only one of the two can be shown. This is one of those aggravating changes which - i suspect - is politically motivated, and thus a very bad idea. :(
Are you saying that your female ancestors didn't have surnames?

If you are looking for logic, then the female ancestor is more likely to be correct, at least in their children's lifetimes.  In most times and places it would have been much harder to conceal the true mother than the true father (although I have heard of cases when a mother claimed a daughter's child as her own).  Of course, in many times and places more records existed naming men and fathers than women and mothers, so some mothers, or at least their birth surnames are hard to identify.

Related questions

+4 votes
1 answer
127 views asked Jan 12 in WikiTree Tech by Anonymous Dupre G2G5 (5.2k points)
+4 votes
0 answers
+3 votes
2 answers
215 views asked Feb 8, 2023 in WikiTree Tech by Peter Roberts G2G6 Pilot (695k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
233 views asked Feb 3, 2023 in WikiTree Tech by Albertus Robert Casimir Jung G2G6 Mach 1 (10.9k points)
+2 votes
3 answers
+2 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...