:Agree with both. I am a genealogist. Genealogy can be fun for the researcher. It is often irrelevant in an encyclopedia once it gets back a generation or two. Do the math: First generation back = 1, 2nd =2 parents, 3=4 gparents, 4=8, 5=16, 6=32, 7=64, etc. Mentioning an ancestor that might have contributed 1 out of 1024 genes seems simply silly. It also presumes no children fathered by someone else and no adoptions which sometimes aren't mentioned in the records. Note that "inconvenient" relatives are usually dropped from the record. The whole business is irrelevant to this article which is supposed to be about Boston not Johnson.