How many cousins do you have?

[Bryman]

I am still counting (manually) as FTA is rather slow to look at about 250 trees. I have looked at those with the most individuals and so far I have
2 firsts, 13 seconds, 32 thirds, 126 fourths, 53 fifths and 4 sixths. I also have about a dozen eighths but when they are that distant, I might as well count the whole population.

 

[Gillian]

I see Tim has added half (first?) cousins, so if I add them, too, I have 7 half (first) cousins on my father's side and 7 full first cousins on my mother's side. I haven't looked at 2nd, 3rd etc etc.

 

[Britjan]

Not to feel sorry for myself but I never had any cousins not even steps. My father's paternal side appears cousinless at the first generation back and no one to my recollection was even hinted at. Fortunately his maternal side has produced most of the "lost cousins" that I have met and his paternal grandmother my second set of "lost cousins." While I have lots of names and a few email contacts from my mother's side she only had a couple of cousins she knew quite well but lost contact with around the mid 1960's.

 

[Gillian]

I have at least met all of my seven full cousins, though two of them only once - at my wedding. And then I met the only one of my half first cousins still alive when I discovered the existence of my father's half-siblings (my big success story). However, I still haven't met a single 'lost cousin' through Lost Cousins. Not one. My only contacts - four cousins and two relatives - are people I'd been in contact with anyhow before I joined. A bit depressing really.

 

[AnneC]

However, I still haven't met a single 'lost cousin' through Lost Cousins. Not one. My only contacts - four cousins and two relatives - are people I'd been in contact with anyhow before I joined. A bit depressing really.

Same here - all my LC contacts are people I have met before on other sites (mainly Genes Reunited), or are close enough relations to be known to me personally.

 

[Tim]

I see Tim has added half (first?) cousins, so if I add them, too, I have 7 half (first) cousins on my father's side and 7 full first cousins on my mother's side. I haven't looked at 2nd, 3rd etc etc.

No, they're half cousins. My Mum's half sister's children are my half cousins.

 

[Gillian]

Same here - all my LC contacts are people I have met before on other sites (mainly Genes Reunited), or are close enough relations to be known to me personally.

Like AnneC, Genes Reunited has been one of my main source of new cousins. Another has been cousins I've 'met' through my own research.

 

[Gillian]

No, they're half cousins. My Mum's half sister's children are my half cousins.

Yes, but surely half cousin and half first cousin are the same thing. I certainly used it but only for the sake of clarity. It's only when we get to second, third and so on cousins that the ordinal number really matters. Still when relatives chatter to each other they tend to use the word cousin pretty loosely (don't they - at least they do in my family) to refer to any cousin - first, second, third or even more distant. I spent some time with a newly discovered sixth cousin in Nottinghamshire a few years back and he always introduced me to people as his cousin. I stress the word "chatter". When the conversation gets serious then of course the ordinal number matters.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

I am still counting (manually) as FTA is rather slow to look at about 250 trees. I have looked at those with the most individuals and so far I have
2 firsts, 13 seconds, 32 thirds, 126 fourths, 53 fifths and 4 sixths. I also have about a dozen eighths but when they are that distant, I might as well count the whole population.

Is there a reason you have 250 separate trees?. By which I mean 250 different files? That seems a bizarre way to organise your data. I'm sure there is a compelling reason but I can't for the life of me think what it might be. Unless you do research for lots of different people. However for 250 that's a professional genealogist sort of level isn't it?

 

[Bryman]

Is there a reason you have 250 separate trees?. By which I mean 250 different files? That seems a bizarre way to organise your data. I'm sure there is a compelling reason but I can't for the life of me think what it might be. Unless you do research for lots of different people. However for 250 that's a professional genealogist sort of level isn't it?

Yes, 'simplicity'. I have a separate tree for each surname. Not always but very nearly so. Some have hundreds of individuals and others only a few.

I like to view and work from the GenoPro tree charts rather than tables or predefined layouts. GenoPro enables me to rearrange the charts into the style/layout that I prefer and to anotate/embellish for easy understanding/recognition, such as partial background colours or boarders for blood relatives, cousins, direct ancestors, entered on LC, matched on LC, etc. That helps me to see where best to concentrate my research efforts.

I am certainly not a professional genealogist but having separate trees does allow most of them to be viewed as a single screen image and avoid much of the need to scroll around massive amounts. Also, by using hyperlinks to move from one tree to another, I avoid the common problem of tangled relationship lines between individuals, making the view much simpler and easier to understand. GenoPro does also allow the use of separate charts for each branch of a tree but I reserve those for dividing large numbers of individuals/families such as for near relatives where I have done more research. There is more to it than that but I don't think this is the place to go into a lot more detail. However, I am happy to explain more 'offline' to any member that would like to know more.

There is a disadvantage working that way in that I cannot produce a single Gedcom file for all individuals but this latest idea of using FTA to count the number of cousins is probably the biggest problem so far, and that is not so very bad because I normally identify and keep track of cousins as I add new individuals. I am now adding that information to my cross reference so that I can make/keep a count of them. My comment about FTA not being very useful to me in this case was no slight against FTA, rather that I am not set up to use it to best effect.

Originally, I had hoped that GenoPro might be enhanced to allow the external links between trees to be optionally handled in a similar way to the internal links between separate branches of a tree but such development is currently on hold and I am not going to stop and wait for that to materialise.

It is not an ideal way of working but I find that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. As others have found, no program is perfect and we each just have to find a way that suits our style and with which we are comfortable.

 

[jorghes]

So, 13 paternal first cousins and 2 adoptive step maternal cousins (my mother's step sister adopted two children) or if we're being really pedantic, no maternal cousins. Current count of 39 2nd cousins (both paternal and maternal since I can never remember which surname goes where). Although, I thought my parents' cousins were my 2nd cousins, but instead FTM is counting them as my 1st cousins once removed.
Apparently (according to my FTM kinship list) I have 6 3rd cousins (but who knows how many 1st cousins however many times removed, as well as 2nd cousins however many times removed); 64 4th cousins and 2 5th cousins. I have endless pages of cousins such and such removed.

But then I don't know how much to trust this list, since it doesn't seem to recognise a double relationship I have on my mother's side - her mother's paternal 1st cousin married her father's sister, and it has added my 1st cousin 2x removed (apparently - my grandmother's 1st cousin) in as "husband of a great-aunt", which is kind of ironic and doesn't recognise the blood relationship that I had with him!

 

[Norman]

.... Although, I thought my parents' cousins were my 2nd cousins, but instead FTM is counting them as my 1st cousins once removed.

I grew up with a cousin , we were described as second cousins by the family. His mother was my cousin. Since taking up genealogy I have come to understand that we are actually first cousins once removed. His children are my first cousins twice removed and their children are three times removed. The thing to remember is that if two people have the same ancestor (my maternal grandfather in this case) then they are cousins. If we had been connected to my Gt Grandfather then we would be second cousins. So FTM is correct in the calculation of your cousins.

I'll post my counts later. Both my mum and dad were one of eleven children. Not all of them survived to adulthood and we were "estranged" from by dad's family while I was growing up. Because of that I have had a great deal of difficulty discovering my paternal cousins.

 

[Gillian]

As others have found, no program is perfect and we each just have to find a way that suits our style and with which we are comfortable.

Exactly.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Although, I thought my parents' cousins were my 2nd cousins, but instead FTM is counting them as my 1st cousins once removed

Since taking up genealogy I have come to understand that we are actually first cousins once removed.

Both the above comments about second cousins being confused for first cousins once removed remind of many family arguments or disagreements. My daughter in particular who insists (mainly for the sake or argument although she really does believe she is right) that my first cousins are her second cousins; despite me constantly telling her they are her first cousins once removed. I explain this by telling her (others) that first cousins once removed are one generation removed from first cousins; up or down. So, for example, my mother or father's first cousins are my cousins once removed (they being a generation older) and conversely my daughter is one generation younger than my first cousins. It usually ends in a truce; until the next time.

As for explaining second cousins to her, or anyone else in the family I gave up on that long ago. Telling them first cousins share Grandparents and second cousins Great Grand parents doesn't work either nor does showing them a Relationship Chart.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Yes, 'simplicity'. I have a separate tree for each surname. Not always but very nearly so. Some have hundreds of individuals and others only a few.

OUCH!!!

I knew GenoPro was a graphical program that was very good at displaying trees and only had the most basic of facts and stored everything else as notes instead of proper facts but I didn't realise it was quite that bad at organising trees. To me that completely and utterly eliminates the benefit of having a tree on computer. Surely the benefit of a computerised database is that you can see ALL of the people you have researched in a single tree? Thus make connections that you wouldn't otherwise notice.

One thing I've never quite been sure of with GenoPro. If you find extra children etc how to you fit them in does the program auto redraw the tree or are you spending ages moving boxes around or do you give up and add the extra children out of order to save moving stuff around?

I can understand GenoPro draws nice trees but otherwise to me it sounds a complete nightmare program. That said I can well understand that people start out using it and get so used to the special attention it pays to drawing trees that they can never quite part with the program as no other program treats drawing trees in the same way.

As I've said many times the "best" program for someone to use is typically the one they first started using. As that is how they got used to using family tree software.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

I thought my parents' cousins were my 2nd cousins, but instead FTM is counting them as my 1st cousins once removed.

FTM is quite right your parents cousins are one generation removed from you so are first cousins once removed. Their children are your second cousins.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

My own cousin statistics are:
1st cousin 3 times removed 210
1st cousin 4 times removed 151
1st cousin 5 times removed 45
1st cousin 7 times removed 3
1st cousin once removed 45
1st cousin twice removed 93
2nd cousin 43
2nd cousin 3 times removed 125
2nd cousin 4 times removed 55
2nd cousin 6 times removed 16
2nd cousin once removed 89
2nd cousin twice removed 47
2nd great grandaunt 53
2nd great grandfather 8
2nd great grandmother 8
2nd great granduncle 51
3rd cousin 26
3rd cousin 3 times removed 15
3rd cousin 5 times removed 59
3rd cousin once removed 29
3rd cousin twice removed 81
3rd great grandaunt 66
3rd great grandfather 16
3rd great grandmother 16
3rd great granduncle 72
4th cousin 32
4th cousin 4 times removed 57
4th cousin once removed 33
4th cousin twice removed 20
4th great grandaunt 48
4th great grandfather 27
4th great grandmother 27
4th great granduncle 43
5th cousin 6
5th cousin 3 times removed 1
5th cousin once removed 10
5th great grandaunt 8
5th great grandfather 32
5th great grandmother 27
5th great granduncle 7
6th cousin 5
6th great grandaunt 5
6th great grandfather 11
6th great grandmother 10
6th great granduncle 12
7th great grandfather 6
7th great grandmother 5
8th great grandfather 1
8th great grandmother 1
aunt 1
brother 2
cousin 5
father 1
grandaunt 10
grandfather 2
grandmother 2
granduncle 12
great grandaunt 40
great grandfather 4
great grandmother 4
great granduncle 25
mother 1
nephew 1
root person 1
uncle 2

Guess what report is available in the next version of FTAnalyzer.

 

[peter]

I knew GenoPro was a graphical program that was very good at displaying trees and only had the most basic of facts and stored everything else as notes instead of proper facts but I didn't realise it was quite that bad at organising trees. To me that completely and utterly eliminates the benefit of having a tree on computer. Surely the benefit of a computerised database is that you can see ALL of the people you have researched in a single tree? Thus make connections that you wouldn't otherwise notice.

I don't know how Bryman organises his tree (a separate tree for each family line, perhaps), but you can have multiple trees in a single file - very useful when you're doing a family reconstitution, or a One-Name Study, and have yet to find the connections (if any).

My own tree is split into two files - file for my paternal relatives and one for my maternal relatives, but that decision wasn't forced on me by Genopro (however it does have the benefit of avoiding confusion where the same surname appears in both trees). You can have multiple files loaded up at the same time.

With Genopro it's very easy to split trees and join them up. You can also have hyperlinks although I'm not sure how they feed through into the resulting Gedcom.

If you find extra children etc how to you fit them in does the program auto redraw the tree or are you spending ages moving boxes around or do you give up and add the extra children out of order to save moving stuff around?

I occasionally reorganise my tree, but it doesn't take very long nor does it need to be done very often.

 

[Norman]

This is how FTM categorises my cousins:-
Maternal 1st cousin 10
Paternal 1st cousin 13
1st cousin 1x removed 55
1st cousin 2x removed 98
1st cousin 3x removed 69
1st cousin 4x removed 21
2nd cousin 24
2nd cousin 1x removed 121
2nd cousin 2x removed 180
2nd cousin 3x removed 46
3rd cousin 53
3rd cousin 1x removed 128
3rd cousin 2x removed 75
4th cousin 15
4th cousin 1x removed 45
5th cousin 7
Half 1st cousin 2x removed 10
Half 1st cousin 3x removed 15
Half 2nd cousin 1x removed 21
Half 2nd cousin 2x removed 15
Half 3rd cousin 14
Half 3rd cousin 1x removed 33
Half 4th cousin 10
Total 1078

 

[Tim]

I have a separate tree for each surname.

Do you mean a separate file for each surname or do you mean that they are on separate tabs within the same file?