mind boggling textural relationships

[Bob Spiers]

Maybe, but I don't recommend using charts to calculate relationships - in fact I advise against it. The only chart you need to calculate relationships is your family tree, and the only skill required is the ability to count.

I must remember that when I meet blank bewilderment from others who are quite able to count. The only reason for charts, like them or not, recommend them or not, is in the hope (often vain) that something of a quasi graphical/textual format will aide understanding which is why they are used in the schoolroom; and dare I say it, the boardroom! (think of Whiteboards, Spreadsheets & Power Point Presentations).

The only way I got my last Boss (he owned the Company and a shrewd businessman) to understand even a basic principle of whatever I wanted to explain was by producing a pie chart. He could relate to that instantly.

KISS -(keep it simple stupid) is a good start off point. I find that people can relate to straight forward direct line ancestors - Parent-Grandparent-Great grandparent - but the moment the family line branches off (excluding perhaps first generation Uncles & Aunts and with a bit of luck their spouses and resultant cousins), everything becomes blurred. Someone falling outside these parameters becomes ...a 'great/grand something or other' or a 'distant cousin of sorts'.

You mentioned quite recently how some people find LC complicated (hence seeking Forum members others to help), so it should come as no surprise that family tree relationships are equally bewildering to a good many people. The chart Norman produced is a big improvement on the well known Cousin Relationship Chart that can be found in Wikipedia (Google 'Cousin') and a useful aide in explaining relationship principles. Especially when combined with a Pedigree Chart. At least then you can explain generational counting principles.

 

[peter]

Bob, the point I was making is that your family tree illustrates the relationship precisely - that's why no other chart is needed.

I'm not at all surprised that people find relationships complicated, and they will continue to do so so long as they look them up in a chart - how are they going to learn anything that way?

Keep it simple and follow the simple rules in the FAQs at the LostCousins site. Nobody who has actually done it that way could possibly think it was complicated.

 

[emjay]

Roots Magic 7 has an option to display (bottom left on the family view) the highlighted person's relationship to the root person.

 

[Norman]

The chart doesn't do the calculating for you but it does show how to do the calcultion when there is no family tree or other visual clue to refer to. It demonstrates how the relationships are determined and can easily be remembered. We don't need a chart but non genealogists have a light bulb moment when they first see it. I didn't invent the chart (I found the idea on the net) but I had the light bulb moment when I first saw it.

 

[Rhian]

I blame schools, for decades they have gone down the 'airy fairy' route of grammar is overrated, spelling is optional and competition is bad. Some people seem proud to be innumerate and semi literate.

I have always used my tree to see relationships, because it is so easy and obvious most of the time. The one area where most software breaks down is where cousins marry and there can be different steps back though each line. I did see a genopro tree once that displayed the connection perfectly. My partners line has 5 pairs of cousins marrying over 300 years and some were 'removed' as well, just looking at the tree did not immediately reveal these links as they reused the same names for generations but it was clear with the genopro tree where clusters of family were linked by diagonal lines forming circles of relationships.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Keep it simple and follow the simple rules in the FAQs at the LostCousins site. Nobody who has actually done it that way could possibly think it was complicated.

Sorry Peter, I really am, but explaining cousin relationships with or without charts -or reading your FAQ extracts on the subject - still does not get through to some people.

I recall reading and liking your FAQ account about "Cousins": "What is a Second Cousin" & "...Once removed", so I snipped and printed them out as examples to use when speaking with family and friends. One occasion I remember well was meeting up with my paternal cousin (I have several maternal cousins, but only one paternal), on the occasion of her 70th Birthday. For her present I had spent ages compiling a FH Booklet detailing her side of the family. She was quite delighted to receive it. Over the weekend of our stay I recall her querying the 'removed' cousin relationships shown in the book, and the inevitable 'I thought they were second cousins' (which I have heard on so many occasions that I never know whether to laugh or cry).

I tried everything I could think of including asking her to read the FAQ extracts, but her eyes told the tale even before hearing ..."I think I must be thick! Outside of the Forum I have only met two people who understood first principles and one was already in to family research (the elderly first cousin once removed mentioned above), and the other the new husband of a old family friend who asked to be shown the ropes researching his own Tree. He cottoned on to cousin relationships quite quickly and I remember congratulating him on being the exception to the rule. He responded with ..."mind you I can't get my sister to understand". (I believe I said join the club).

So that is why I and the others who have posted seek ways of getting the relationship message across and will willingly embrace charts, FAQ extracts and whatever else turns up until we discover the Holy Grail method.

 

[peter]

Sorry Peter, I really am, but explaining cousin relationships with or without charts -or reading your FAQ extracts on the subject - still does not get through to some people.

I can't believe that there are any family historians who can't read a family tree!

 

[Bob Spiers]

I can't believe that there are any family historians who can't read a family tree!

Agreed, but who is talking about family historians?

 

[peter]

who is talking about family historians?

I just wanted to be clear that you're only advocating relationship charts for people who aren't family historians.

Personally I'd still prefer to show someone how they were related to their cousins using a family tree than a chart - because then they would have a better understanding of the relationships. Knowing that someone is technically my 2nd cousin is not nearly as important to me as knowing who our common ancestors are. I used to see one of my 2nd cousins quite a lot as a child, and I knew then that she was my 2nd cousin, and that our mothers were cousins - but I didn't know who our common ancestors were until I started researching my family tree.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Personally I'd still prefer to show someone how they were related to their cousins using a family tree than a chart - because then they would have a better understanding of the relationships.

I agree, but the best responses I ever get (with non family historians) is first setting out their Tree in a Genopro (Pedigree style) Chart. (I do not use Genopro as a Data Base as you do, but find it invaluable for creating customised charts, with the subject as the Home person). The first chart I keep real simple; just direct generations up to Great grand parent. A vertical division to explain paternal and maternal and text labels naming the generations.

Once that is grasped I move on to the second (usually a copy of the first) but with added first generation Aunts, Uncles & Cousins. If this becomes too 'busy' I will illustrate just a few and use arrows, dotted horizontal lines and text to show the relationship of each to the Home person. (I ignore the fact that most will know their immediate kin relationships, because the same format will be used for the next generation up where it may not be so well known).

Further charts can just be previous charts upgraded to another generation but if too 'busy' I may start the third at parent level, and so on and so forth if extra charts are needed. After that I play it by ear as quite often individual families prompt special charts -say for second marriages, adoptions, out of wedlock births, step relationships; the list is endless.

They say a picture pains a thousand words and I find this to be true especially when trying to explain 2nd,3rd cousins and the same with removed cousins and even Great/Grand Aunt/Uncle levels.. They may not remember everything you tell them, but given a copy of the chart to keep, they have the means for recall and these quite often lead to email questions which I am glad to answer.

 

[Heather]

They say a picture pains a thousand words

Hope it's not too painful Bob.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Hope it's not too painful Bob.

Hi Heather, going to have call you Hawkeye. It pains me to say it, but will respond in the same way my Australian sister does when I catch her out in something... 'you're not often wrong, but you're right this time'- (and no I don't understand it either!)

 

[Tim]

I pains me to say it

It ?

 

[Bob Spiers]

It ?

Smart something or other springs to mind but will award you a smiley anyway

 

[Liberty]

I also have an instance of first cousins marrying, but that's in my ancestral line so there isn't any mislabelling... I just get to double up on ancestors.

Me too. It can be difficult explaining to contacts that such-and-such a person was e.g. 1st cousin of my GG Gmother and 2nd cousin of my GG Gfather.

 

[Bob Spiers]

This story relates to the subject matter and is about the way families view Tree demarcations

I don’t know about others but I sometimes run afoul of family line demarcations and this sometimes causes heated exchanges. This is because as the Family Historian (a label used by the family) I am apt to cross ancestral boundaries only to hear… “they’re not family” responses. Here is the example which prompted the post.

My sister on a visit said her granddaughter (aged about 9) had been asked in class, along with others, if they had anyone in the family who had served and died fighting in world war one. This was given as a small project. She had told her granddaughter Uncle Bob will know (strictly Grand Uncle Bob but the term is never used unless I mention it)

Now it is true, and my sisters would know, that both Grandfathers fought and survived WW1. They would be less sure about Grand Uncles hence asking me. Of those who fought in the war -excepting one who died from wounds shortly after returning to ‘Blighty’ -all survived. Good news of course except it won’t help my Grandniece complete her project.

As it happens I had just been revisiting my first wife’s Tree line (both children are from my first marriage; my first wife is deceased). Her cousin -a keen family historian – had made contact to tell the story of how her family line (and my ex-wife’s) had had more than its fair share of WW1 Casualties. It turned out that two of her uncles (both brothers) had died in France & Flanders, and the same fate fell two once removed cousins (also brothers). One had died at Passchendaele and the other serving in the Navy at the Battle of Jutland. To me that was fascinating stuff and family boundaries of little consequence.

I mentioned the facts to my sister only to be reminded with some emphasis that they were not family. Now I readily put my hands up to agree this was so, and I think I said but …”in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king”; meaning in the absence of bloodline, the information could be explained as something that had occurred in her Grand Aunt’s family? (a little poetic licence to call her that but easier than by saying (more accurately) it occurred in the ancestral line of her first cousin once removed, my daughter as it happens). I offered to set it all out for her but my sister declined on the grounds it wasn’t family! So, that was that!

Post script: When my sister explained this to her daughter (my niece and the child’s mother) she overruled her mother and contacted me. Asking me to go ahead and to email her the story for her daughter to take to school. This I did and I later learned it earned my Grandniece a gold star!

 

[jorghes]

Me too. It can be difficult explaining to contacts that such-and-such a person was e.g. 1st cousin of my GG Gmother and 2nd cousin of my GG Gfather.

Oh definitely. I also have a fun one in my mother's family - where her father's sister married her mother's cousin (and that's the easiest way to explain it!!), and it gets further complicated by the fact that both of her parents had sisters called "Betty" - on her father's side that was the sister that married the cousin... So you always have to specify, even to my mother, who knows all their faces better than I do, which particular Betty you're referring to!

This story relates to the subject matter and is about the way families view Tree demarcations

I don’t know about others but I sometimes run afoul of family line demarcations and this sometimes causes heated exchanges. This is because as the Family Historian (a label used by the family) I am apt to cross ancestral boundaries only to hear… “they’re not family” responses. Here is the example which prompted the post.

My sister on a visit said her granddaughter (aged about 9) had been asked in class, along with others, if they had anyone in the family who had served and died fighting in world war one. This was given as a small project. She had told her granddaughter Uncle Bob will know (strictly Grand Uncle Bob but the term is never used unless I mention it)

Now it is true, and my sisters would know, that both Grandfathers fought and survived WW1. They would be less sure about Grand Uncles hence asking me. Of those who fought in the war -excepting one who died from wounds shortly after returning to ‘Blighty’ -all survived. Good news of course except it won’t help my Grandniece complete her project.

As it happens I had just been revisiting my first wife’s Tree line (both children are from my first marriage; my first wife is deceased). Her cousin -a keen family historian – had made contact to tell the story of how her family line (and my ex-wife’s) had had more than its fair share of WW1 Casualties. It turned out that two of her uncles (both brothers) had died in France & Flanders, and the same fate fell two once removed cousins (also brothers). One had died at Passchendaele and the other serving in the Navy at the Battle of Jutland. To me that was fascinating stuff and family boundaries of little consequence.

I mentioned the facts to my sister only to be reminded with some emphasis that they were not family. Now I readily put my hands up to agree this was so, and I think I said but …”in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king”; meaning in the absence of bloodline, the information could be explained as something that had occurred in her Grand Aunt’s family? (a little poetic licence to call her that but easier than by saying (more accurately) it occurred in the ancestral line of her first cousin once removed, my daughter as it happens). I offered to set it all out for her but my sister declined on the grounds it wasn’t family! So, that was that!

Post script: When my sister explained this to her daughter (my niece and the child’s mother) she overruled her mother and contacted me. Asking me to go ahead and to email her the story for her daughter to take to school. This I did and I later learned it earned my Grandniece a gold star!

I can kind of relate to that - being somewhat younger (!!) - both my grandfathers fought in and survived World War II and neither of their fathers served (that I can find) in World War I. So you have to move outside my direct ancestral line to find anyone who died in either War. The closest relatives I have who died in World War I, were three 2x great uncles, all died in France - 2 for the AIF and one for the British Army. All the rest I have found so far were all distant cousins.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I often find myself relating to the postings of others -particularly when it comes to inter cousin marriages - but my memory being what it is these days, cannot always recall which of my ancestors' relates. So, rather pleasingly this week I was contacted -yes via LC as it happens – by someone who asked a question which instantly brought such a family to mind.

Although the contact was enquiring for a different - and as it happens much more interesting - reason, seeking to know if I had information that would identify the father of his ancestor’s child, born out of wedlock in a Workhouse, I could at least clear up some of his relationship questions.

We both had ancestor HR married to Mary Ann W and their son HR married to Mary Ann W. He was not aware until I explained that HR (Jr) had married his mother’s brother’s daughter, also Mary Ann W, so they were first cousins.

My contact conjectured that as both HR’s were in the printing trade and living in the same area as a young printing apprentice aged 16 (understood to be the father of the child), he may have lodged with one or other of them. Soon after it is believed the boy left the printing trade (not easy if an indentured apprentice) and joined the Army. Sadly, I could not help with his problem though have promised to check further and keep in touch.

But, curiosity raised I did check on the relationships of the married first cousins and as expected Ancestry tells me they are both my first cousins, 3 x removed. Such being the legacy with first (and other) inter cousin marriages as many have posted about.