Just for curiosity, as many of you do, I searched the relationship to Pope John Paul II and found that he supposedly is my 14th cousin 5 times removed.
That is a curious find and of course I enjoy looking at the people involved between myself and whatever person. I understand some notion of privacy with living people and a few immediate generations or cousins but what is the point of a profile manager inputting things like "." son of and "." daughter of and ".". Who are these people and what credibility would anyone have trying to prove any relationship to ANYONE with such nonsense?
I don't mean to sound rude but it makes genealogy a joke.
I too am 14th cousin 5x removed, but that is only if François Savoie is proven to be the son of Tommasso......
I have so many relative based on the above theory, but until proven, these are just "pretend" relatives....
See my post http://www.geni.com/projects/discussions/Roman-Catholic-Popes?discu.... This may be part of the reason for the strange relationships.....
That is my thinking too. "pretend' relatives beyond Francois Savoie is a good way to put it.
This is what I was alluding to for anyone else to see.
See all the display name dots and wierd symbols a pattern from one particular profile manager.
Here is an example of a few generations of a line back from Pope John Paul II's family.
Henry IV de Bourbon, Roi de France his son →
Henrietta Maria of France, Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland his daughter →
. her son →
. his daughter →
. her son →
. his daughter →
. her son →
. his daughter →
<> her son →
. his son →
不 [Inuit] his daughter →
ΛεR [Inuktituk] her son →
T(ς [Inuktituk] his son →
E. AENs [Inuktituk] his daughter →
Ernst 'Aurnst' Paracy, [\PArΔKAN/], {PAr/\IM} her son →
Aunst his son →
Yok Presczek his son →
Emilia Kaczorowska Wojtyła his daughter →
Pope John Paul II-her son.
My concern is with why the secrecy of all the dots on someone who is no longer among the living? I've never heard of someone named "."
It really matters not whether I am related in any way but if someone truly was, perhaps they need some actual information to prove it? Am I wrong to think this?