Set Relationship - Enchancement request

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. Starting in RM10 – that is not the case.

What I am asking is the ability to toggle or even better to set some rules of who is include (spouses of Aunt/uncles but cousins for example). At minimum No Spouse (if not blood) which is like RM9 & 8 did…

For some of what I did in RM9 & 8 – will require a complete much more complicate re-work. Example below works but for coloring the spouses Lime for spouses of cousins and Green for aunt/uncles/ will be much more difficult then my original scripts (my coloring goes beyond that)

-- set non-related to yellow color code rather than black 
-- not setting everyone to yellow to make sure if they are related they do not get changed if they have a close double relationshop
UPDATE PersonTable
SET Color = 5           -- yellow
WHERE (Relate1 + Relate2 = 0) 

-- set related to slate color code rather than black  
-- probably unneccesary but a double check to make sure nothing missed and no blacks
UPDATE PersonTable
SET Color = 27           -- slate
WHERE (Relate1 + Relate2 > 0) 
-- Colorcode immeadiate inlaw to red
UPDATE PersonTable
SET Color = 1    -- red
WHERE (Relate1 = 999)  -- immeadiate inlaw
-- Colorcode parents, grandparents to red
UPDATE PersonTable 
SET Color = 1   --red 
WHERE (Relate1 = 0 and Relate2 > 0)	  
-- Colorcode aunts, uncles
UPDATE PersonTable
SET Color = 4   --pink
WHERE Relate1 = 1
-- Colorcode cousins
UPDATE PersonTable
SET Color = 21   --orange
WHERE (Relate1 >= 2 and Relate1 <= 99 and Relate2 >= 0 )	  

Color codes

WHEN P.Color =  1 THEN 'Grandparents'
WHEN P.Color =  9 THEN 'spouses'
WHEN P.Color =  3 THEN 'spouses spouse'
WHEN P.Color =  4 THEN 'Aunts Uncles'
WHEN P.Color =  21 THEN 'Cousins'
WHEN P.Color =  2 THEN 'spouse of a cousin'
WHEN P.Color =  6 THEN 'other spouse of parent of spouse'
WHEN P.Color = 10 THEN 'other2'
WHEN P.Color = 11 THEN 'parent of spouse'
WHEN P.Color = 12 THEN 'siblings of spouse'
WHEN P.Color = 14 THEN 'Distant Relation'
WHEN P.Color = 27 THEN 'Related Unknown'
WHEN P.Color =  5 THEN 'unrelated'
END AS type
1 Like

This one is likely to affect me as well. Good catch.

  • Spouses of aunts and uncles have always been marked as relatives. In other words, the husband of my aunt is listed as my uncle. That’s not quite right and it has not changed in RM10. But I have lived with it before, so I will continue living with it.
  • Spouses of great aunts and uncles (any number of greats) have always been marked as unrelated. New in RM10, they are marked as spouses of great aunts and uncles.
  • Spouses of cousins (whatever kind of cousin) have always been marked as unrelated. New in RM10, they are marked as spouses of cousins (whatever kind of cousin).

This is a welcome improvement, but I will need to change my color coding scheme a bit.


I have uploaded my 4 files to RM10. Relationships have been set in 3 cases but not the fourth. I cannot find the “setting relations” option referred to on p91 of the book. I am sure it is obvious but not to me.

Look under the paint palette for Set Relationship.

  • Be sure you are in the main People tab on the left side of the screen (you probably already are)
  • Highlight the base person for the Set Relationships (usually yourself, but not always). You can do this from any of the views at the top of the screen - Pedigree, Family, Descendant, etc.
  • Click on Edit icon (looks like a pencil or a crayon) in the upper right portion of the screen.
  • Choose Set Relationships from the dropdown - last item in the list.

You don’t have to highlight the base person first because you can navigate to the base person after clicking on the Edit icon, but it’s usually easier to have the base person highlighted first.

1 Like

Yeah I notice last night when I went to update (thought it was going to be a quick simple thing ) – I am quite sure I can come up with a recursive method that will work tonight when I can review. I sill share on the SQLITE site when I do.

I’m on a pc without anything earlier than RM10 but I note that @thejerrybryan says that the spouses of lineage aunts and uncles were listed on screen as uncles and aunts in earlier versions. What is new is the extension of "spouse of " a relative to more distant ones.

What has bamboozled me for a while this afternoon was that almost the very first spouse of an uncle I looked at is not categorised as anything, either in the sidebar or in the Kinship List. But that’s the only one among the spouses of my six first uncles and aunts who does not. Admittedly, this is a play database file that has undergone lots of operations but RM shows nothing weird in the main views and Edit Person windows.

Good luck with your sqlite queries. I look forward to seeing them.

1 Like

Here is an example of what mine typically looks like.

Lena Maude Bryan was my father’s sister, and hence she was my aunt. Her husband was Louis Charles Truan who was not my uncle but rather was my uncle by marriage. Even so, he shows up as uncle. It’s been that way since at least RM4.

There is only one situation where one of my parents’ siblings was married more than once. In that case, both spouses show up as aunts at the top of the sidebar.

I don’t know if it’s just in my case or if it’s just a southern Appalachian tradition or if it’s a more general tradition, but it was conventional in my family to address the spouse of an uncle as "aunt’ and to address the spouse of an aunt as “uncle”. That was also true in the case of the spouses of my grandparents’ siblings. But strictly speaking by genealogy, they were great aunts and great uncles by marriage, just like the spouses of my parents were aunts and uncles by marriage.

That’s the same as in my Canadian-British Isles family and my wife’s Scottish family.

My mystery is why one of my aunts-by-marriage is not reported as an aunt in the RM10 main display nor in the Kinship report when Family, Descendant views show only 1 spouse up and down the tree.

1 Like

We used the same “labels” for siblings of my parents and my 1st cousins did the same. We all knew who Uncle Richard was :slight_smile:
Since my grandparents’ siblings were technically Great aunt/uncle, to my parents they are just aunt/uncle and as kids we just followed suit when they referred to them as aunt/uncle. Wasn’t till I was an adult I learned this Again my cousins follow suit. Aunt Mary & Anne were our grandmother’s sisters.
Also throw in the mid-west/southern custom of calling people by their middle name. Uncle Richard was legally John Richard and so was his son (Ricky).

I’m glad they didn’t start calling me Francis or Frank LOL

In my case, my aunt and uncle by marriage are also my aunt and uncle by blood-- I never knew any of my g-aunts and uncles and their spouses but Mom always mentioned her uncle Adolph–so when I am thinking abt him, he is Uncle Adolph BUT when I do a family update, I say g-uncle Adolph–my nieces and nephews / g nieces and nephews all use aunt or uncle for all the aunts/ g-aunts and uncles/g-uncle regardless if by marriage or blood…
Except for my oldest niece who only ever says Nancy, all my older nieces and nephew all refer to me now as Aunt Nancy BUT that has only been for the last 10-20 years–of the 22 nieces and nephews I have, only 4 of them have called me Aunt since they could talk-- you just don’t go around calling someone slightly older than you AUNT as a child!!!

Thank you very much. It is obvious when you know.

I became an uncle shortly after my 5th birth and my nephew is same age as my wife :slight_smile:


Tom-- it has nothing to do with your database or what you’ve done to it as I am seeing the same issue in several of my databases-- some strictly made in RM and others started in other genealogy programs and moved thru several different programs until finally getting to RM 7 and all the various versions…
So my dad’s database and one other seems to have no problems ( but the 2nd one is so large, it might take years before I find a problem)…
Mom’s database seems to have 1–and it’s bad as it’s just one of my sis-in-laws–brother and her kids show the correct relationships— so I tried dragging and dropping my sis-in-law to dad’s database and it shows the correct relationship-- Interesting!!!
Then 1 of hubby’s databases has a few missing the relationships of spouse of the g-uncles (2 out of 4) and spouse of gg-aunt/gg-uncle ( 1 out of 7) that I have found so far–again all the g-uncles and gg-aunts/ gg-uncle show correctly-- their are some g-uncles who were married 3 or more times–2 of the wives show as spouse of-- the 3rd doesn’t…
Then we come to my test database and it is a mess–it’s like every generation is missing at least one ( and sometimes more) spouse of relationships ----a lot of these were originally entered into the RM 9 database BUT I have also added new individuals into the RM 10 database–set the relationship again to the same person to update the file and some show the spouse of relationship and some don’t…
Going back to I dragged and dropped my sis-in-law and it corrected it–well I dropped and dragged my whole test database–well it corrected some BUT not all – when I added some new people–some showed correctly–some don’t BUT the worse part is that some who show right in the original RM 10
test database

don’t show right in the drag and drop test database
one step forward-- 2 steps backwards!!!

Tried everything I could think of to fix the problem up to unlinking brother, sis-in-law and their kids from each other and unlinking brother and sis-in-law from their parents and then relinking them all and resetting set relationship-- no change…

1 Like

this is interesting and may require some more test cases to identify why is going

If you have examples where Set Relationships is not correct open a support ticket with a backup. Tell us which individuals Set Relationship is based on and who to look at.


in my Database I have not noticed any “unexplained”.

Still would like more control of how/when non-blood spouses are included (or not).
In many cases I (or other uses) might want the current default result RM does – but I gather that most do not want that to be the only option. Maybe at least 2 options Max ancestor generations and a box to check include spouses

The “unexplained” are so sparse they can be hard to find manually. I just now posted a script at Find missing Spouse Of relationships to find the “unexplained”. So far I have only tried it on my database. I would love to see additional testing of my script. It might (or might not!) find some “unexplained” in your database that you have not found manually.

It appears to me that my own script to color code based on relationships will need only the tiniest of tweaks. The tweak will need to be in the first step where it is color coding relationships before color coding spouses of relatives and parents of spouses of relatives and siblings of spouses of relatives - that sort of thing. In that first step, it will need to ignore anybody whose PersonID.Flags field is non-zero. With that one small tweak, the rest of my script will work just fine.

I should have clarified – when the relationships are set from my son-in-law POV – I found no issues. (His 'branch/tree" is about 1000 people and 95% or more are from his Mom’s side). There are some issues when doing from my daughters POV