# Relationship display error? **URL:** \ **Category:** RootsMagic\ **Tags:** question, feature-request, issue\ **Created:** [March 22, 2025, 5:43pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489 "2025-03-22T17:43:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Willem](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/willem/32/4693_2.png) [@Willem](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/Willem)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2025, 5:43pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/1 "2025-03-22T17:43:33Z")
I have set RootsMagic to show the relationships from the Root person (me). To facilitate the work I’m doing, I also color coded all of my ancestors. I would expect that a direct ancestor, like an 30th great grandfather, would be shown as the most important relationship (as does the relationship calculator which puts it first), as shown in the image, this is not what I get on the Person’s edit screen ![Rootsmagic question relationships](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/rootsmagic/original/2X/0/0735e339bd2fdfdac303abda6ab82c14dea7f60f.jpeg) Is there a way/setting to correct this? ---
**Author:** ![nkess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@nkess](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/nkess)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2025, 6:49pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/2 "2025-03-22T18:49:33Z")
@Willem Unfortunately no—I guess you can say it is working as designed for RM – you only run across this problem when both spouses are related to you. Here are 2 previous threads that expand on your question > [@Set Relationship - problems](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/set-relationship-problems/11377/10): > > and @thejerrybryan— having 2 spouses is NOT the problem as I have many who had 2 spouses that show up right as ’ spouse of’ for the blood relative and no relationship for the 2nd spouse of the non-blood relative… and Tom the asymmetry is very confusing-- going back to Squire Green showing as spouse of instead of 3rd g-- well Squire was married twice-- so when I go to his 2nd wife ( with no kids) her relationship says [image] so IF I did NOT know what was going on here, I would be won… > [@Set Relationship - Enchancement request](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/set-relationship-enchancement-request/11353): > > This likley already has been thought of – but not sure on list for development. Starting in RM10 – Spouse of Aunt/Uncle/Cousin are now include. This is welcome sometimes but not other time depending on what you are doing. Referring when you run “Set Relationships” There is not way to toggle when/if spouses are included or not (Unless I missed it). The tool also sets the value in Relate1 & Relate2 values of the table. Previous to Rm10 non-blood (except direct inlaws) would be 0 values. Star… ---
**Author:** ![Willem](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/willem/32/4693_2.png) [@Willem](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/Willem)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 12:02am UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/3 "2025-03-23T00:02:38Z")
> [@Set Relationship - problems](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/set-relationship-problems/11377/10): > > non-blood relative… and Tom the asymmetry is very confusing-- going back to Squire Green showing as spouse of instead of 3rd g-- well Squire was married twice-- so when I go to his 2nd wife ( Dear Nancy, thanks for the links to the threads In the case I showed it mentions the spouse, but it also happens with 2 cousin so many times removed, or even X gguncles. As you say, it is likely because more than one of the family members is related to me (e.g. several of the children are direct ancestors). Perhaps in a next version this could be addressed? Would it be corrected if the show relationship to spouses can be turned of? ---
**Author:** ![kevync1985](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3be4f8/32.png) [@kevync1985](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/kevync1985)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 3:31pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/4 "2025-03-23T15:31:26Z")
Based on the database table (Person) there is a flag field – (One value) – I am guessing it assumes the shortest path is more correct but that may or may not be the desired one – a person can have 5 or more paths especially on larger db, Kevin ---
**Author:** ![nkess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@nkess](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/nkess)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 4:12pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/5 "2025-03-23T16:12:21Z")
@Willem Yes it is going to happen on any couple that has a dual relationship to you the farther back in time you go-- my hubby and his mother are also 3rd cousins ( hubby’s g-grandparents were cousins who married) BUT that always shows the mother/son relationship for them.. That said, you can still have relationships off even in more recent times-- for example-- my Dad and his brother married sisters-- so when I check the relationship between my nieces and nephews to my Mom’s sister–it says that she is the spouse of the great uncle instead of great aunt. > [@Willem](#): > > Perhaps in a next version this could be addressed? Would it be corrected if the show relationship to spouses can be turned of? RM actually just added this expanded " spouse of" in RM10–as for being addressed–that is totally up to development and only @rzamor1 can answer that question BUT yes I would think an option to turn off relationship to spouses would solve the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Willem](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/willem/32/4693_2.png) [@Willem](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/Willem)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 2:33am UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/6 "2025-03-24T02:33:03Z")
> [@kevync1985](#): > > e correct but that may or may not be the desired one – a person can have 5 or more paths es Dear Kevin, Thanks, you are probably correct. As you imply, it may be difficult to code, as in some cases the shortest path may not be the “most direct ancestral relationship (with which I mean of the ggfather or ggmother type)”, although I wonder if a rule-based table could be used before displaying the result, perhaps based on the results from the relationship query which shows a list of all different relationship paths. Anyway, for now the color coding provides an indication of such direct ancestry (I think). ---
**Author:** ![Willem](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/willem/32/4693_2.png) [@Willem](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/Willem)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 2:35am UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/7 "2025-03-24T02:35:54Z")
> [@nkess](#): > > e relatio Thanks. And then they say only living relatives are problematic… ---
**Author:** ![nkess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@nkess](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/nkess)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 3:31am UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/8 "2025-03-24T03:31:41Z")
> [@Willem](#): > > And then they say only living relatives are problematic Think I have more problems with the dead–they are NOT born when and where they are suppose to be, they are not listed as living where they are suppose to be and they are NOT buried where they are suppose to be… And definitely have problems with their ages especially 2nd g-grandma and her son-- they bounced around on their age in census and dc so much that the last listings I have for them both shows them at least 10 years younger than actually were… ---
**Author:** ![rzamor1](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/rzamor1/32/8_2.png) [@rzamor1](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/rzamor1)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 1:39pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/9 "2025-03-24T13:39:13Z")
I don’t see us turning off a feature users asked for and we just added. This is only an issue when spouses are related multiple ways. The first relationship calculated is displayed in set relationships. ---
**Author:** ![Willem](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/willem/32/4693_2.png) [@Willem](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/Willem)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 1:58pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/10 "2025-03-24T13:58:28Z")
Thanks, I am not asking to turn it off, but perhaps it could be toggled by the user? ---
**Author:** ![Willem](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/willem/32/4693_2.png) [@Willem](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/Willem)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 2:04pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/11 "2025-03-24T14:04:05Z")
I know the problem. We did the genealogy of my wife, who is from a small town in Italy. I wrote a little “article” about it for the book we published for the family: ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/rootsmagic/original/2X/e/efbcd49aa07639ee334e47fb495ac2e09305d422.jpeg) ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/rootsmagic/original/2X/c/c1c2d811c94391cea0d7d7b87ba5617375af6427.png) ---
**Author:** ![kevync1985](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3be4f8/32.png) [@kevync1985](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/kevync1985)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 2:27pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/12 "2025-03-24T14:27:51Z")
> [@Willem](#): > > but perhaps it could be toggled by the user? “Configurable” I can understand the ask. I also wish the text of the relationship was accessible. (Calculated off the Person Table values (Relate1, Relate2 & Flags etc) That said you could use CTE and recursive query to determine some of that. (That would be outside of RM), Though you could potentially, have a custom fact that gets update by a query. That would NOT be a simple query. ---
**Author:** ![ChadK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9e8a1a/32.png) [@ChadK](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/ChadK)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 10:54pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/13 "2025-03-24T22:54:34Z")
Not sure who asked for it, but it changed the way it used to work for the last several versions of RM including the initial v10. Many of us were used to the way it used to work and several of us think the old way is more correct, or at least preferred. ---
**Author:** ![kbens0n](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/kbens0n/32/80_2.png) [@kbens0n](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/kbens0n)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 2:37am UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/14 "2025-03-25T02:37:54Z")
> [@ChadK](#): > > but it changed the way it used to work for the last several versions [An update on RM10’s improved Set Relationships feature - RootsMagic - RootsMagic Community](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/an-update-on-rm10s-improved-set-relationships-feature/11419) ---
**Author:** ![Willem](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/willem/32/4693_2.png) [@Willem](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/Willem)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 12:13pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/15 "2025-03-25T12:13:21Z")
> [@kevync1985](#): > > ugh you could potentially, have a c Thanks for the interesting thread. Personally, I have not come across the need for this “Spouse of” relationship, but at times you just don’t know what you need. ---
**Author:** ![ChadK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9e8a1a/32.png) [@ChadK](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/ChadK)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 1:05pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/16 "2025-03-25T13:05:35Z")
Not sure what you ( [kbens0n](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/kbens0n)) intended with that reply, but this person in that thread sums it up nice for me: > There is another effect caused by the new “spouse of” relationship: > If relatives marry under each other, formerly, the kind of how the spouse was related was mentioned in RM9. Now in RM10 this information about the kind of how they are related is overwritten by the “spouse of” information. > I prefer the information of how the spouse is related compared to the more or less obvious information of their marriage. I am much more interested in the blood relationship than the “spouse of” relationship. This is how it worked in the initial version 10, and how it worked in version 9, and how it worked in version 8. ---
**Author:** ![Willem](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/willem/32/4693_2.png) [@Willem](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/Willem)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 1:35pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/17 "2025-03-25T13:35:12Z")
I agree, but as I said elsewhere, I have not come across a reason to desire to know the spousal relationship. Hence my request it could be turned on or off. ---
**Author:** ![ChadK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9e8a1a/32.png) [@ChadK](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/ChadK)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 1:53pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/18 "2025-03-25T13:53:12Z")
Willem, I agree. Obviously, the coding has been completed for both ways. Now we just need a switch to use the old programming versus the new programming, so people can choose whichever way suits them. ---
**Author:** ![thejerrybryan](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/thejerrybryan/32/404_2.png) [@thejerrybryan](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/thejerrybryan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 1:59pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/19 "2025-03-25T13:59:02Z")
> [@rzamor1](#): > > The first relationship calculated is displayed in set relationships. That is not a good design. I’m not in favor of turning off the “spouse of” feature. Rather, I’m in favor of changing the design so that actual relationships always take precedence over “spouse of” relationships. And if the design cannot be changed in that way, then I actually would be in favor of turning off the new feature. Overall, it makes things worse rather than better. The fact that it’s a new feature and that users requested it doesn’t matter if the design of the feature is not good and if the feature does not meet user’s needs. Conceptually, the fix is quite easy. The code is obviously making one pass at the data. The same pass is setting actual relationships and setting “spouse of” relationships. So the fix is to make two passes at the data. The first pass would set actual relationships. The second pass would set the “spouse of” relationships, and only for the spouses that weren’t already actual relationships. As to how I know this, I have an SQLite script that color codes based on relationships. It does more complicated color coding than can be done from within the RM user interface. Version 1 of my script did its color coding based on what it found in RM’s data from Set Relationships. But I had to rewrite my SQLite script for RM10 because I wanted actual relationships color coded one way and “spouse of” relationships color coded a different way. So Version 2 of my script no longer relies on RM’s data from Set Relationships. And Version 2 of my script makes two passes at the data. The first pass is to color code actual relationships. The second pass color codes based on “spouse of” relationships. And the second pass does not change any color codes that were set by the first pass. That’s the same logic that RM’s Set Relationships tool needs to use. All that being said, even with a two pass design, it’s not clear that the “best” or “closest” actual relationship would be chosen. In fact, it’s not clear that there even exists a “best” or “closest” actual relationship. My SQLite script is actually a three pass solution. - Pass #1 color codes the direct ancestors of the base person who is usually me. But sometimes I use one of my kids as the base person so as to color code my wife’s side of the family along with mine. - Pass #2 color codes the direct descendants of the people who were color coded in pass #1. It works its way back down from everyone who was color coded in pass #1, but there is nothing in the logic that tries to find the “best” or “closest” actual relationship. I think it might be possible to add such additional logic, but it surely would be a tricky process. - Pass #3 color codes the spouses of actual people with actual relationships, provided that the spouses are not already color coded. I have in the back of my mind to adapt my existing script not only to color code but also to do the Set Relationship logic correctly so that “spouse of” relationships do not take precedence over actual relationships. But that would solve the problem in RM10 only for me. I think it needs to be solved for all RM10 users. ---
**Author:** ![kbens0n](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.rootsmagic.com/kbens0n/32/80_2.png) [@kbens0n](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/kbens0n)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 2:34pm UTC](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489/20 "2025-03-25T14:34:01Z")
> [@ChadK](#): > > Not sure what you ( [kbens0n](https://community.rootsmagic.com/u/kbens0n)) intended with that reply I was pointing out discussion WHERE… (what you were told by @Nkess): > [@nkess](#): > > RM actually just added this expanded " spouse of" in RM10 …an upgrade/change had previously been requested by users and fulfilled, but had consequences. That is all. [Next page](https://community.rootsmagic.com/t/relationship-display-error/13489.md?page=2)