ThroughLines on Ancestry

[Pottoka]

Ancestry is trying to give me cousins to evaluate, but all it will tell me to do is to add them to my tree, not how to dismiss them.

Example: half 5 x cousin 1x removed, descended from a Joseph Rimmer, born on 24th October 1761 in Liverpool.

I do have that Joseph in my tree, being descended from his brother, also Joseph, who was born on 1st July 1770. Strangely enough, the parents did not have two children of the same name; they called the second Joseph by his paternal grandfather's name after the first son Joseph died, aged 7, in 1769.

There are several public trees on Ancestry who claim to be descended from the elder Joseph, although their owners are not DNA matches to me according to their homepage, but Ancestry keeps plugging them to me.

Another one of these weird half relatives supposedly descends from a Mary Rimmer in a different part of the Rimmers, but who was born at different dates and in an entirely different county from the May Rimmer in my tree. In that tree, the owner has just put a date and not even done any research into her parents! Why a half of a relative, anyway?

I'm not saying that my tree is perfect, but I can see that the examples I've given are not related, so is it possible to get rid of them somehow?

[Jomot1]

I'm not saying that my tree is perfect, but I can see that the examples I've given are not related, so is it possible to get rid of them somehow?

If its on Thrulines I'm afraid its not, you're stuck with them.

Bear in mind though that when you get that far back there's a reasonable chance that even if you are related there won't be a DNA match.

[Pottoka]

Thank you for your reply, Jomot.

I rather thought that that would be the case, but I do think that Ancestry are a bit mean about it: you can merge the details if you agree but not dismiss if you don't.

It's in the vein as the changes in offering other trees, drip by drip, one after the other, instead of in bundles like before. Basically they're making you pay to waste your time on useless hints. I suppose I could leave all their "shaking leaves" but they make my tree look messy!

[Pottoka]

Bear in mind though that when you get that far back there's a reasonable chance that even if you are related there won't be a DNA match.

So the chap who has one of my 6 x great-grandfathers, born 1657, in his tree as the husband of his "8th great grandma" (also my 6 x great-grandmother, born 1663, who only married once) and is descended from a different child of theirs, most probably won't share any DNA with me?

And there's me believing that we're all descended from Edward III and thus William the Bastard