I think I might have found a relationship calculation issue within V10 and hope I can provide an adequate explanation of the issue.
I have a 1C2R (Bertie) who was born illegitimately with his grandparents adopting him at birth. Bertie is entered as the biological (birth) son of Mary and the adopted son of his grandparents.
However, this then means that the relationship calculator incorrectly labels Bertie as my great-granduncle. It also means that all generations thereafter are incorrectly labelled (eg my 3C displays as my 2C1R).
What is pleasing however, is that when my 3C is entered into the DNA screen, her relationship there is correctly displayed as 3C (and not the 2C1R that is displayed at the Family View). The correct relationship also reports on the “Relationship Chart” report.
I’m wondering if I might be missing something and there is a section where I can set the “preferred” parent so the relationships display correctly in the Family View.
If not, could an enhancement request be submitted please so that the relationship displayed on the Family View is derived from the “birth” parent(s).
Try switching his displayed parents in the Pedigree View and recalculating. I forget whether that affects the path the Relationship Calculator follows. It certainly affected many other lineage outputs in RM7 and earlier as I reported 9 years ago in https://sqlitetoolsforrootsmagic.com/children-set-lineage-to-birth/
Thanks so much Tom for your response but unfortunately those steps didn’t change the relationships displayed in the Family View – the relationships remain based upon his adoptive parents, rather than his birth mother.
And gosh, it seems as if this issue has been around for a while! It’s funny that the new DNA page can display the relationship correctly, but the Family View doesn’t. Perhaps the new program language will now enable the developers to implement a fix. Let’s hope!
I keep intending to delve into SQLite (as it seems that it can fix or overcome some of the program shortcomings) but the genealogy bug has hit very hard and there just isn’t enough time……….
The Relationship Calculator probably shows both relationships but Set Relationships only the shortest path, regardless of the type of relationship. It’s a shame that after decades of requests for improvement in this area, nothing has been done to qualify or filter the calculation.
I’m not into DNA so I cannot make informed comment on what that page does. It’s possible it uses a different calculator or, just maybe, the same one with the very filtering people have been asking for.
Hi Jerry, sorry for the confusion and thanks so much for checking. When I followed Tom’s steps and changed (checked) the displayed parents in the Pedigree view, I then used the Set Relationships Tool to see if the relationship updated on the Family View. It didn’t.
And to tell you the truth, I completely forgot about the Relationship Calculator. I’ve just accessed that tool and ran it to see the result. Despite having the birth parental line displayed in the Pedigree View, it still shows the incorrect relationships (ie, those based on the adoptive line). Sorry Tom, but it only shows one relationship.
Hoping this new thread might prompt the developers to review the issue. I’ve just noticed that half relationships are now being displayed in the Family View (yay!!) so perhaps this issue will now be able to be resolved as well. Fingers crossed!
If you use set relationship for the adopted person ( and you included his biological parents), it will show his relationship to every one in each line—meaning he will have 4 grandparents instead of 2 etc…
IF a child has one parent that was biological and one that was adopted ( and you have both the adopted and biological parents listed) and you set relationship to the child, the child now has 6 sets of grandparents etc…
As for the relationship calculator, it SHOULD show you BOTH relationships BUT ???
I went in and add a child to his mother and unknown spouse-- then added him as a child to her parents— note it does NOT matter if I mark them as birth or adoptive parents
So he know has 2 fathers and 2 mothers – when I run the relationship calculator for his biological mother and him, no matter which person is 1st or 2nd , I get
when I run the relationship calculator for either of his adopted/ grandparents and him, when the child is the 2nd person, I get
when the child is the 1st person , I get
Hi Renee, I followed the directions and unfortunately the following occurred:
After unlinking Bertie from both his birth and adopted parents, and then relinking to just his birth mother, I ran the Set Relationships and everything was fine. The relationship calculations looked “right”.
I then linked him back to his adopted grandparents and ran the Set Relationships tool again. I did this as I am constantly adding new family members to my tree at present and need to run the tool periodically. However once this was ran a second time, the relationships reverted back to the ones based on his adopted parentage.
For now, I’ll unlink him from the adopted parents as I’d prefer the correct “birth” relationships to display.
@JillV – you have to keep in mind that RM does NOT support other family types such as adoption/ step-parent/ stepchild–so when you added their grandson to the family even though you MIGHT have marked him as adopted-- RM still thinks he is their child-- and that throws off your relationship to him as your common ancestor is the grandparents and RM thinks he is their child— for example if Mom was married 5 times BUT only had 2 kids by the 1st hubby, if you add the kids to each stepfather, the kids would know have–6 sets of grandparents etc and a ton of extra aunts and uncles–
So unfortunately, you have to choose between having the relationships right or acknowledging the persons who raised him…
@rzamor1 I personally think the relationship calculator may have something to do with Jill’s results also BUT IF you think we need to move this to another thread, please do so…
@kevync1985 – I knew when I posted those yesterday that it wasn’t working right in RM 10 because it should show all relationships on the Relationship Calculator-- so I went back to RM 9 and set Joseph as a child of both Sue and then her parents-- Sue’s turned out exactly the same as above but now RM 9 shows
WHICH IS CORRET----and again it doesn’t matter who is 1st or 2nd…
So it does appear that there is something NOT quite right abt RM 10’s relationship calculator BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE ADDING A NEW PERSON and/ or RELATIONSHIP-- to explain, I opened another RM 10 database ( that was made in RM 9) where I already had dual relationships showing–
So I want into RM 10 and added a child to son Ronald and then added the same child to his parents also
and it ended up the same way as Mel and Joe— If Meme is 1st then it says son and 3C1R–if Bev is 1st it says
Went back to RM 9 and did the exact same thing-- doesn’t matter who is 1st – what I get is
Which is correct–don’t know if this is only going to happen on a child added to 2 parents BUT truthfully, it shouldn’t matter-- RM 10 should show all the relationships and it’s NOT
showing them on a new person/ relationship…
That may be a practical workaround for a user having 1 or 2 such instances of non-birth relationships in a tree but all it is, at best, is a clumsy workaround for the lack of anything more than data entry support in RM. Why was the relationship-type feature ever introduced if there was never going to be any support for the different types anywhere else in the program? They are not searchable, they have no effect on main views and charts (e.g. linestyle) and cannot be excluded from lineage outputs. I’m sure there are outstanding requests for enhancements of this sort all the way back to RM4.
Your suggestion to unlink from the adoptive parents before Set Relationships and then relinking after set me to thinking just how easy it would be to implement that in the Set Relationships routine so a user could choose to include or exclude non-birth relationships. While a better routine would inherently filter based on the type of relationship and would not require temporary unlinking by type, this SQLite script shows just how easy and efficient the latter can be and, until such an enhancement is delivered, is a speedy workaround that skilled enough users can apply to the most complex and largest trees.
May this be regarded as an enhancement request that stimulates needed developer attention to the woefully unsupported parent-child relationship type feature.
