I have the same problem, lets hope they fix it soon
I see this was a pending item from a thread 5 years ago. In classic view, the spouse shown is still the first spouse and not the most current spouse and ignores all the children from the most current spouse. The other view shows the new spouse way on the far right with direct link to ex-spouse.
In the beginning, it was not a problem but now I think it is causing some of my family members to boycott updating their info on this site. When will this be corrected?
Many thanks for escalting it up to the development guys, I have another problem that I cannot see an answer for.
I have someone who was born illigitamete to a known Mother, the child was given up for adoption within a few days of birth, nine months later the child was adopted by my parents who changed the childs name when adopting it in the Juvaniler Courts.
That means that the child became a step brother to me, further complicated by the fact that I was also adopted by the same step parents.
Even though I have completed all the info under facts for each person involved I cannot get the software to show these relationships on the tree, so there is no connection line from the origional birth name to the new name./
Not sure if that makes any sense bujt happy to give you access to the onl;ine tree so you can see it yourself, it may well be that I am just not entering the correct facts in the right order , but it ends up with the tree showing three brothers of the same parents only one of which is by birth the other two are adopted so should be showing as step brothers.
The system does not seem to pick up that one of them with two names is the same person, Hemmings at Birth and Griffin after adoption.
If you can shed any light on that or give me any advice I would be most grateful..
At the moment I am new to the software and still learning hoe to use it but I already have a lot of my family history which I wanted to get right before moving up to the Premium Version.
Hi Jenny and Michael,
I've pushed both of your replies to our developement team and they should be working on this issue.
Is the problem that the some overriding (even when originally ok) algorithm provides a relationship based on the fewest steps rather than the directness of the relationship as taking the priority? Obviously the latter should ALWAYS prevail
I am building my family tree based on direct relationships. The software and the web program provides a summary of the relationship. Of course, when working through the nobility, there are multiple relationships. So if I see someone at the top of the pyramid to build to in multiple lines, I follow them through at the bottom to meat at the top. At points you will have smaller looped relationships. Sometimes you have to connect and reconnect, but finally, it will recognize them correctly - other times not at all. At some points, you can have four different relationships, three which are direct, but for some reason, the software will chose the indirect one (even though parents and children are read as direct)
However, this afternoon, I had the strangest event, when the proper relationship was recognized and about 10 minutes later with no changes made, it reinterpreted back a direct ancestor to a relative.
I have Baldwin V and the Countess of Flanders who have at least two children with direct lines to me.
1) William I married to Matilda of Flanders. In this case, this and all above and below through a myriad of connections come through as direct ancestors.
2) Count Baldwin VI of Flanders, I of Hainaut married to Countess Richilde. Deispite a direct line from Baldwin V and the Countess ( who both read as direct ancestors), Count Baldwin VI and Countess Richilde and their son Count Baldwin II of Hainaut read as relations in respect of Matilda rather than Baldwin. Yet Count Baldwin's son Baldwin III and all the way down the rest of the line reads as direct relationship.
Interestingly enough it was correct when I first entered it, but suddenly it recalculated those relationships.
Is the problem that the some overriding algorithm provides a relationship based on the fewest steps rather than the directness of the relationship as taking the priority?
In this case, Balidwin relationship involves 32 generations to arrive at me, while the other indirect involves 28 simply because of the varying ages within the line.
In the right margin, click Family Trees > MyHeritage Members. Sounds exactly what you want, right?
Enter the person's name (and country if you remember it) in the Basic or Advanced form and click search. If you don't want to browse through the resulting 30,000 people, try using "Match name exactly" and/or "Exact search"
I'm using FTB18.104.22.16838 so my directions apply to that version; they might work for V7.
Marital status is attached only to the Family record, not to the individual. It defines the relationship between two people. If there is not and has never been any "significant other" of record, and if there is no family, it is (I think) self-evident that the person in question is either spinster or bachelor. But I see your point - how do you know for sure so you don't keep hunting for a spouse and children?
Here are four suggestions:
If the person is deceased, you might use the Email field (I always find it silly that for a man who died in 1850 there is a field for his email!)
Probably easiest is to just put it in a Note.
Use the More tab and click "Research is complete for this person". This will put a big green check mark on the card in the tree. You can ignore it and keep adding say, census data, copy of birth certificate etc.
You might also create a graphic (say, a ring with a slash thru it) and use that as the personal photo. Quick and easy to spot. A bit of a nuisance changing back for charts and reports, though, if you have an actual photo of the person.
You can control the "No children" part. Although the marriage box shows Children: 0 as a default, if you open the Family record and click the Children tab, you will notice at the bottom that the Known number of children box is blank. Click the check box (so it has a check mark in it) then set the number of children to 0.
The record will now read Children: 0 (There are no children in this family) -- which I think is what you want.
I recently got a premium plus subscription, but when I try to open the record finder for potential matches, it offers me the opportunity to join. I paid for this, I should be able to access the records!!
Holding a Premium Plus subscription, if you want to have access to all the records on the Super Search, you will have to buy a separate Data subscription or buy credits. This is because it is not possible for us to offer the historical data for free because a lot of the historical data comes from partners that require royalties on its use by customers. For example, views of UK census records require fixed royalties to the official UK archives. We cannot give all our subscribers thisdata for free, else the content partners will not get paid, which is not possible. We also cannot subsidize these content partners by paying them, so that our subscribers could get free data.
However, please note that as a Premium Plus user you have free access to ALL of MyHeritage.comcollections.
There are four MyHeritagecollections. These are comprised of data from MyHeritage.com and are not available anywhere else on the internet. The four MyHeritagecollectionsare:
1. MyHeritage family sites (like the Warrick Family Web Site, or the British Celebrities Site)
2. MyHeritage members (Site Managers and Site members of MyHeritage.com)
3. MyHeritage family tree individuals (people in the family trees at MyHeritage. This could include Napoleon Bonaparte or Albert Einstein)
4. MyHeritage photos (the pictures on MyHeritage.com)
Collections1 & 2 are available to MyHeritage members with a Premium family site subscription as yourself. If you have a Premium family site subscription you will be able to search for family sites and MyHeritage members without having to buy an extra subscription.
Premium Plus users have access to all MyHeritage.comcollections.
Hope this is useful. Please contact me for further comments or questions.