Cousin relationships

[Bob Spiers]

A recent family lunch (in a restaurant away from home) with son and daughter and respective families present. I announced that I had learned via my sister in Australia that her granddaughter (my great niece) was now a successful author, having had her first novel accepted for publication. We got down to first names and my daughter said you mean my cousin G’s daughter, C? I confirmed she was right. My daughter then said that makes C my second cousin which I corrected by saying that actually she was her first cousin once-removed. Then it started.

My daughter stuck to her guns to which my wife (not my daughter’s mother I should add) said ‘you are just like your father’, meaning I have been known on occasion to disagree when perhaps I shouldn’t. Feeling on home ground I adamantly refused to concede C as a second cousin and explained she would only be such if she was the daughter of my first cousin not hers. I went on to explain it was all about the sharing of grandparents or great grandparents, that was lost on the assembled throng and to be truthful I was being out-voted. So my wife in her inimitable style cooled things by saying it is Bobs pet subject and I will get him to email you on the matter and explain why he believes he is right (meaning she had no idea either).

That was two weeks ago and I did in fact explain things (and included a relationship chart) and would you believe (perhaps you wouldn’t) achieved some consensus as to what constitutes a first cousin once-removed and what a second cousin. My daughter said she ‘sort of’ understood the difference but I doubt she did and going on others present- and many others beside - I doubt very much cousin relationships other than first cousins are understood. Many, many people believe automatically that the children of their first cousins are second cousins, which is not so.

 

[Tim]

I had a similar discussion with SWMBO, eventually proving the same thing. I always find it strange that she'll believe what Google says as the truth but not when I tell her

 

[Bob Spiers]

I had a similar discussion with SWMBO, eventually proving the same thing. I always find it strange that she'll believe what Google says as the truth but not when I tell her

Yes Tim, before reaching a consensus my daughter also quoted some obscure site found on Google (seeking argument of course to refute what I was saying)where there was discussion with the words ...'surely a child of a first cousin is a second cousin'? I found the site and looked further down the many answers being given and eventually found one that gave the right information and pointed this out to my daughter. The best I achieved was 'I suppose you are right this time'

(I reminded her just as when we -actually it was my wordsmith wife - challenged a scrabble word she used a month or so back and would not accept there was no such word. Luckily her partner came to the rescue as he could not find it their official Scrabble Book otherwise I doubt she would have relented even then). DNA has a lot to answer for but I am sure it was of Mitochondrial origin!

 

[Britjan]

. I always find it strange that she'll believe what Google says as the truth but not when I tell her

Would she believe Wikipedia which actually has a fairly straight forward article on the subject ?

If you really want to leave anyone speechless you could say, quoting Wikipedia, " Although use of the word "cousin" to describe an extremely distant relation is infrequent (especially outside of evolutionary literature), any two individual organisms regardless of their respective species (or any other level of taxonomy) are in fact very distant cousins by virtue of shared descent from a single cell whose descendants survived beyond the Paleoarchean Era.[7][8]. "

 

[Tim]

I think you summed it up pretty well

 

[emjay]

Would she believe Wikipedia which actually has a fairly straight forward article on the subject ?

If you really want to leave anyone speechless you could say, quoting Wikipedia, " Although use of the word "cousin" to describe an extremely distant relation is infrequent (especially outside of evolutionary literature), any two individual organisms regardless of their respective species (or any other level of taxonomy) are in fact very distant cousins by virtue of shared descent from a single cell whose descendants survived beyond the Paleoarchean Era.[7][8]. "

Reminds me of an amusing moment, when out of the blue, my 7 year old grandson stood beside my chair and whispered, "Don't believe everything you read on Google, anyone can edit it" ! This same grandson (now almost 9 yrs. old) who looks over my shoulder when I am using my laptop, telling me what I am doing wrong, advising me of short cuts etc.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

That reminds me emjay of something Douglas Adams (author of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) once wrote:

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

For your grandson Google and the internet is just normal ordinary and a natural part of the way the world works, for you it goes against the natural order of things

Oh and he probably meant don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia anyone can edit it. Which is of course true but actually that's it strength as those who know about a subject can contribute knowledge and because there are so many people that will know about a topic and a complete history of edits is maintained any incorrect information entered is extremely rapidly corrected, in some cases in a matter of seconds.

Basically you edit a page and people interested in that topic get an email with the changes. This will rapidly lead to them changing any incorrect info you've added. So actually wikipedia is very very well policed. If only family trees on the web were as well policed as wikipedia we'd have a lot better info in our trees.

 

[Tim]

I do like Hitchhikers, it's a great book and transferred well to the radio and to tv.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Err it started on the radio.

 

[Tim]

Well, ok, I meant written for the radio and you're quite correct.

 

[AndyMick]

I wrote a couple of web pages to assist in working out cousin relationships - linked here in case they help someone.
I did not use the terms "Grand Uncle" etc. - when I wrote it I was unable to find out where this terminology had come from (except perhaps the programmers who wrote FTM)
Also a fan of the HHGG, but preferred radio to TV - I do get this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side
Also a user of SWMBO - a phrase from John Mortimer's "Rumpole"

 

[Tim]

I had a quick look, very nice.

However, FTM works it out for me and so does FTAnalyzer now.

 

[AndyMick]

It does now - FTA didn't exist when I wrote it

 

[Bob Spiers]

On topic with Cousin relationships -although somewhat a divergence from recent posts - I was asked by my paternal (female) First Cousin what relationship her maternal (male) First Cousin was to me. (I recall her Cousin from childhood family gatherings but that was about all). The nearest 'reasonable' answer I could come up with was a 'sort of' cousin-in-law', other than by a convoluted descriptive answer.

In a Kinship Report (with my cousin's cousin as the base person) it found no relationship to me or my sisters and my father is described as being the 'Brother-in-law of the Aunt' (the Aunt being my father's brother's wife - her sister being the mother of the said Cousin -(see what I mean about convoluted)).

So as his son I -and my two sisters - must be a sort of "cousin-in-law" (if there is such a thing). Anyone have a better answer or care to comment?

 

[emjay]

I hadn't thought of having cousin-in-laws before, but it seems a good term for wife/husband of my cousin.

 

[peter]

I hadn't thought of having cousin-in-laws before, but it seems a good term for wife/husband of my cousin.

It's OK, but capable of misinterpretation - whereas "my cousin's wife/husband" is hard to misunderstand.

 

[emjay]

Yes I think I would only use the term as in : "Hello cousin-in-law",directly , but not in referring to them with a third party.

 

[Liberty]

It's OK, but capable of misinterpretation - whereas "my cousin's wife/husband" is hard to misunderstand.

Most 'in law' expressions are rather unclear. I use the term 'sister-in-law' for the wife of my brother, and the sister of my husband. Also, unless trying to be very clear, for the wife of my husband's brother.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Imagine as a child meeting relatives at a family party or wedding and being told by my mother that Aunt Hilda (married to her brother Harold Adams) and the one pointed out to be as Aunt Mabel (married to Thomas Adams) were sisters but Aunt Mabel was not related to us. This used to blow my young mind.

This problem was compounded by the fact I knew my two ‘so called’ Adams’ Aunts shared the same large house with their respective families. Indeed I used to visit in my youth to play with my cousin Eric Adams (Aunt Hilda’s son). At such time I would come across Aunt Mabel and her family (they lived upstairs but shared the same garden). I could not for the life of me understand how we could not be related but mother was adamant; Aunt Mabel is NOT a relation.

All these years later of course I know what it is all about. Two sisters married two different –and unrelated – Adams men. For convenience they bought a large house and one family occupied the downstairs, and the other upstairs. Uncle Harold & Eric were bloodline relatives and Hilda was related by marriage. Thomas & Mabel were given the courtesy title of Uncle & Aunt as was customary in those days. My mother and ‘Aunt’ Hilda were true sisters-in-law whilst Mabel was a 'sort of' sister-in-law through her brother’s marriage.

All this was regurgitated recently by the contact of a son of Thomas & Mabel via Ancestry, the link being we both shared Eric as First cousins although neither of us recall meeting each other as children. He knew the two Adams lines were not related (in so far as we both know of course) and we sort of agreed a little vaguely that we were sort of cousins-in-law? The contact was rewarding as I learned all about his line as he did mine and he updated me on our shared cousin ‘Eric’.

I know Peter thought the term 'cousins-in-law' was OK but capable of misinterpretation. True of course but I think the wordy 'maternal cousin of my maternal cousin' fares no better and invariably requires a deal of supporting information, such as that given above.

 

[Margery]

The use of titles is more confusing when generations overlap. My husband has 2 aunties who are younger than him so their children are his first cousins. What would be a suitable title for this man who was older than their parents?