I noticed on this family I had to RED people on the left hand side when only one was expect (or at least I thought so at first glace) – this is not a glitch or bug but something you mind run across.
I would say that labelling Ellen as “4th great grand aunt” describes her genealogical relationship while “spouse of 4th great grandfather” misses it completely. Therefore, she should also be pink, like the rest of Cynthia’s siblings, not red because she is not a direct ancestor.
Strictly speaking, “Spouse of” should only be applied to non-blood-related individuals (in a couple-relationship) who produced no offspring blood-related to the reference person.
Ellen has a double relationship. RM is likely applying either the first or last thing it find & ignoring others. If Ellen did not have a double relationship I would not be able to adapt my coloring method to indicate that. My Post was intended to be aware that “Spouse of” does not mean there is not also a blood line connection as is the case with Ellen.
I guess it could be argued when there is a blood line relation do NOT give another relationship/label (via the relate1, relate2, & flags) – however with the cavaet this could impact other reports due to the marriage relationship). So this might have some hidden complexity beyond the family view
yes - I would expect her to be pink.
So RM would appear to give the flag (debatable incorrect) of “2” for Spouse of a Male. and also not give(or loose) the aunt relationship via relate1 & relate2.
In any even “Spouse of” grandparent would for now would need a new color to highlight this distinction.
so I gave color MINT for that condition (Spouse of Grandparent)
I use lime for spouse of Aunt/Uncle and Green for regular non blood spouse so I choose lime so it would stand out that there is another relationship (according to RM method)
Nice!
Can you share the color coding logic you used to highlight “Spouse of” ? Am wondering if it captures all “potential” double relationships (i.e. where PersonTable.Flags!=0) or could be modified to do so? (I guess the term “double relationships” is a simplification and the number of relationships could be >2.)
Thanks for explaining and for the link to the script. I misunderstood your prior post and was thinking that there was a way to track “spouse of” within the RM UI.
Have also had time to think more about the core issue identifying people with more than 1 relationship, how their descendants get treated, as well as the implications within reports that you mentioned. There is more complexity than I initially understood.
agreed - although the complexity gives more possibilities (just need to understand). It seems like with the updated design of the relate1/2 & flags it should be possible to creates rules to go more with RM UI (for users that do want to deal with SQL).
I already posted in another thread that I now have a solution to color coding relatives that always color codes relatives as if they were relatives when the relative is also a spouse of a relative. My solution does not depend on the codes set by RM’s Set Relationship tool. I will be posting my solution on Tom’s SQLite site as soon as it’s cleaned up enough for public consumption.
My solution first color codes all direct ancestors as red. It does this by color coding one base person as red, and then it repeatedly color codes parents of red people as red until no more people are color coded as red. Then it repeatedly color codes children of red people as red until no more people are color coded as red. Only then does it color code spouses of red people as green, and only if the spouse is not already red. That makes sure that a person who is both a relative and a spouse of a relative will always be identified as a relative rather than as a spouse of a relative.
I find this to be a satisfactory solution for my color coding. But I still don’t like people I’m related to being identified by RM as something like spouse of my second cousin three times removed when in fact they could been identified as my third cousin. For that reason, I think the RM 10.0.1 version of Set Relationships needs to be withdrawn and the previous version of Set Relationships needs to be restored unless the new version can be improved always to give preference to relative relationships over spouse of relative relationships. I have over 700 people in my database who are identified by the RM 10.0.1 version of Set Relationships as a spouse of a relative who better could be identified as a relative.
It has even occurred to me that my little procedure might be enhanced to actually set the relationship codes properly in addition to the color coding. That’s not impossible, but it’s definitely harder to set the exact relationship codes than it is just to color code the the relatives.
(Edited: solution now uploaded to Tom’s site, 7/19/2023, 1:51 p.m. Eastern time)
