In RM10 in set relationship, there is now the “Spouse” and other non blood relationships like son-in-law, …
The relationship calculator still only shows blood relationships.
Blood relationships are overwritten by the non blood relationships like “Spouse of” in cases where blood relatives marry.
Therefore, an option to have only blood relationship in “set relationship” would be useful.
It may very will be true, but it’s very unclear exactly how the new “Spouse of” feature works. Does it always overwrite? Does it sometimes overwrite? If it sometimes overwrites, then what is the criteria for overwriting not?
Set Relationships is going to calculation based on the first relationship it finds.
First relationship it finds WHERE-- for example one relationship is g-aunt and one is spouse of g-uncle
What is “first” depends on the algorithm.
The old algorithm didn’t take into account any non blood relationships. So the feature request asks to have the option also to choose the old algorithm.
Wanted to add a little more info on what I noticed…
This only happens when you are dealing with dual relationships such as cousins marrying or siblings marrying siblings-- so if you set relationship to the older of the two of you, it always shows the blood relationship as you are NOT dealing with a dual relationship…
When you set relationship to you, it will show you the CORRECT blood relationship for 3 of the 4 people-- it will ALWAYS show you the INCORRECT relationship of SPOUSE OF on the MATERNAL LINE…
For example with brothers marrying sisters-- when you set relationship to their g-niece, it shows
It didn’t do this in RM 9—
just an FYI
If I understand correctly, that means that RM is making a single pass at people and assigning them as either a relative or as a spouse of a relative on the first pass. In other words, it’s not making two passes at people, setting people as relatives on the first pass and setting people as spouses of relatives on the second pass. So if a person is both a relative and a spouse of a relative, it’s entirely possible that they can be set as spouse of a relative instead of being set as a relative.
If that’s really the way it’s working, then it messes my color coding. I want all relatives color coded red. For my color coding system to work, being a relative needs to take precedence over being a spouse of a relative. I then want all spouses of relatives color coded green unless a spouse of a relative is already color coded red. In other words, after being color coded red I don’t want the fact of being the relative of a spouse to change their color to green.
That is exactly why I asked for the option to have only blood relatives be set as relatives, because also my color coding gets messed by all the spouses.
If you are color-coding descendants don’t include spouses, then it will calculate them based on being the descendant of someone.
I mainly color code pedigrees. Do you also have a solution for those?
Color-coding ancestors shouldn’t have any issue with spouses. It will only do the direct line.
The direct line has no issues, but the cousins have. An example is shown here in 3rd answer:
outside of RM – via SQL there are options
I don’t see how those options can help. The blood relationship of the spouses of cousins (if the spouse is a blood relative) is not anymore in the database.
I’m color coding relatives, not descendants.
There is an option to color code ancestors for a large number of generations and then to color code all descendants of those ancestors for an even larger number of generations. In theory, that would be a way to mark all the relatives and nobody else. However, that particular marking tool does not have the feature to leave out the spouses. The only way for me to leave out the spouses would be to go to each furthest back ancestor in turn and to mark the descendants for each one without including spouses.
I like the idea of the new feature in Set Relationships where it shows spouses of relatives. But the feature is extremely disruptive if the same person is both a relative and a spouse of a relative, and if it’s a coin toss which way such a person ends up being displayed. It needs always to show the relative relationship rather than the spouse relative of relationship when both exist. Or there needs to be an option not to mark the spouses at all.
In my database of 41,165 people, 9,304 are marked as “spouses of relative” by the 10.0.1 version of RM’s Set Relationship. Of those, there are 766 which really should be marked as “relative” rather than as “spouse of relative”.
The only way I’m able to see the counts is that I have already run Set Relationships under 10.0.1 but I have not yet run my color coding under 10.0.1. Therefore, my color coding still reflects the Set Relationships from pre-10.0.1. There is no way to run the pre-10.0.1 Set Relationships on 10.0.1.
If I were to rerun my color coding right now, the color coding would be adversely affected. I use red for relatives and green for spouses of relatives. Right now, the people color coded green are assured not to be relatives. I go on to have a different color coding for parents of spouses, a different color coding for other spouses of spouses, and a different color coding for siblings of spouses. So it’s not just the color coding for spouses that would be adversely affected if I re-color coded my database right now. Lots of other people would be adversely affected as well.
I also like the new option in Set Relationships of marking Spouses of where it shows spouse of the relatives BUT there is another problem besides what has already been mentioned as being messed up— the KINSHIP LIST also displays the incorrect relationship of SPOUSE OF rather than GG—AUNT as shown above
Marjorie Bernice Spouse of granduncle
So if I sent a Kinship list ( or report with a Kinship list) to others, they are going to be confused…
Should the husband of an aunt by blood be “spouse of aunt” or “uncle”? Maybe it should be “uncle by marriage”. “Spouse of” or “by marriage” remove confusion over whether he is related by blood when characterised simply as “uncle”.
That case is handled fine by RM10.0.1.0, as the uncle is mentioned correctly
.
But if the relative is farther away, for example in my database the fact shown by “Set relationships”, in RM9 was “cousin 3 times removed”.
It is replaced in RM10 by “Spouse of half great aunt”. This is of course an example where relatives have married.
this might be one of those jargon/lingo things – “Oh that is what they mean” – Agreed it should be clear and less open to interpretation or confusion