When generating the Relationship chart the common ancestor couple only presents with the male (father) and does not display the female (mother).
When I run each branch separately for their relationship to the couple, it displays both the father and the mother as related to each branch. The do have a fact indicating they married and are displayed in the pedigrees as spouses. Chart below should show Anna Miller with Albert Duval. Looks like a bug. Any thoughts?
Example:
1 Like
I believe you’re mistaken that it represents both the father and mother as related to each branch. It merely shows the endpoint people and the fact that Anna, Albert and Lillie (all on the Duvall branch) are the connectors. Albert as a singular listing looks to be an intentional way to make it clear that the Duvall line is the common link.
1 Like
maybe a misinterpretation as Kevin Benson explained rather than a bug.
This is a like a MMMFFMM chart shown in other software.
Kevin
It really depends on how the Family View appears. If both siblings are from the same parents, and those parents are in the same family group, then it should show both parents on the relationship chart. The way it looks they only have the father in common.
@rzamor1 I went in and checked a relationship chart in RM 9 and the same relationship chart in RM 10 – @pdwiggins is correct- it only shows the paternal side of the paternal line in RM 10 instead of both paternal and maternal in RM9–can’t say it is a bug as I suspect this is another issue due to the fact that RM 10 was changed to include " spouse of" relationship feature…
RM 10
RM 9
As a side note-- if you have a dual relationship between 2 people created by brothers marrying sisters /siblings marrying siblings-- both RM 9 and RM 10 only show the paternal lines-- same as above..
Now don’t get me wrong–I think the addition of the “spouse of” feature is great-- I like it --just think there are issues that need to be fixed please…
Open a support ticket, include the file and who to look at.
https://support.rootsmagic.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
@rzamor1 – I just submitted a support ticket with the info above-
Ticket #142704: Relationship Chart Common Ancestor in RM 10-- only shows Paternal Ancestor
for you all to look at–it really does NOT matter who you pick on the relationship chart to compare as long as they are blood related as it is looking for their COMMON ANCESTORS–so it should always show the maternal and paternal lines
1 Like
RM 10.0.5.0, 64 bit, Windows 10 Pro
The Relationship Chart is a report I seldom run, so I am late to this discussion. I can replicate the problem. Here is a Relationship Chart for Alva Edward Peters and Sallie Jane Cole who were second cousins who married. However, I don’t think the fact that they married has anything to do with the problem. The problem is that the common ancestors were a couple - Thomas Peters and Sarah (Sallie) England. But the Relationship Chart only shows the male common ancestor and not the couple as a whole as common ancestors. Other boxes in the report do show couples rather than individuals.
We can see the ancestral couple as a whole in Pedigree View, outlined in green.
The problem is trivial to replicate. You don’t need anybody’s database. For example, I just made an Ancestral Chart for my brother and myself. It shows us as brothers. It only shows our father as our nearest common ancestor and not our mother. And yes, we do have the same mother.
1 Like
That is very strange. Since seeing Tom’s post, I have tried a number of different pairs of people. I made sure to find pairs where there were no multiple paths to the common ancestors. I can’t find a single pair of individuals where the common ancestral couple shows up. It’s always just the common ancestral male.
So I was probably wrong that you don’t need a database that has the problem. It looks like my database has the problem, and Tom’s database does not.
I believe that I have always had only one person at the top as a common denominator.
But with today’s test and some previous prints in 2025 show that the common denominator has a spouse.
Have Win 11 and RM 10.0.5.0.
@TomH and @thejerrybryan Jerry don’t think it’s a matter of our database has a problem–just something is different because we now stand at 3 who only get the paternal line ( Patsy was the 1st) and 2 that get both–it’s not Windows 11/ 10— I have tried lines that didn’t have multiple paths to the common ancestor and I still got the same results-- most of my database have multiple paths to a common ancestor which is why I used my test database because I was thinking it didn’t have any–well I went in this morning and removed 2-- saved and did a back up–same thing only the paternal ancestor.
So one other thing I was thinking abt–I have never used sqlite on my database—so @TomH is it possible that when we talked earlier in the year abt problems with the new relationship feature ( spouse of) in RM 10 that you used sqlite on the database for souse of-- just asking as I took the names from your post last night and built a brand new database with just the names only and came up with just the paternal line again
and I did it right
just a thought–
I tried a number of cousin combination depths and ran RM’s Set Relationships in case it was a database on which I had used my SQLite Set Relationships. As I expected, that had no effect on the Relationship Chart report. I consistently got the Most Recent Common Ancestor Couple. While the Chart generator may use code in common with Set Relationships, it is independent of the latter’s results.
That you get only the grandfather in your simple database suggests there is something different in the configuration of your software or even the computer platform. My RM10 is on an Intel i5 from around 7 years ago.
Have you checked the Chart as saved to PDF or DOCX?
You could share your test database and allow many people to generate a Rel Chart and see if there is any pattern to the occurrences of the grandma being omitted.
Am I missing the point? Shouldn’t half-siblings as endpoints only show the common parent? In other words, descendants of half-siblings ad infinitum should also only show the common parent.
Correct. But mine are full siblings, or full first cousins, or full second cousins. Etc. They should surely show both common parents.
Definitely, when both share DNA with endpoints. Ok, I’m not feeble-minded yet 
1 Like
Does Robert Barber have two spouses, maybe, and Miriam is just a clarifying addition as to which spousal relationship applies?
I ran a chart on 2 fiest counsins whose common paternal ancestor had multiple spouses and still only the paternal common ancestor showed.
That’s a clever thought, but no. Robert and Miriam have only each other.
1 Like