I’m so excited about the new associations. I had created a fact called “Slaveowner” to connect the formerly enslaved to prior owners, but this seems a more elegant way to do this. I plan to also create association to the other enslaved individuals.
I watched Bruce’s video on RM9 last night but my question to the forum is can we use that Association to create or connect a tree for that person? In other words, Now I have separate trees for the slaveowners, but can I connect those trees via the Association? That would be quite a boon to my research.
I have a related question. I notice that FamilySearch recently added an Other Relationships connection in their trees which is similar to (but more limited than) the Associations in RootsMagic. Are they connected at all or are they two totally different things?
RM9 doesn’t seem to include associations in transfer to FamilySearch at this time.
I have sent a feedback to FamilySearch suggesting additional relationships be added to their list
- Convict Assignment (Master/Convict): because lots of us Australian researchers have those
- Guardianship (Guardian/Ward)
Like @msualumni33 I have previously used a separate fact for these, but using witness roles made it difficult to find things like all the convicts assigned to a master. Associations is certainly more elegant, and the Associations (Individual) report might be sufficient for my needs.
As for connecting trees, I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. It would certainly be useful to be able to navigate directly to the associated person from the original person dialogue.
With an Association both individuals need to be in the same database. The database can contain separate trees inside of it.