Genealogy Chat

Yes, Jan - you correctly worked it out using the rules I learned in the 1950s.
Unfortunately, I no longer remember where I got the rules from. I didn't pay that no nevermind at the time, thinking it was the sort of thing most folk knew about.

I have almost that relationship with another genesreunited member :-)

I am the great-great-grandchild
he is the great-grandchild
of Sam

but I am from Sam's second wife,
he is from Sam's first wife


but ...............

Sam's wives were sisters

figure that one out !


at least what it does mean is we have the same ancestors :-D

So, MGNV, did I have it right in the past? Because for the life of me I can't think how I came up with such a complex system on my own! It must have come from somewhere. I agree, the way it is done on the table id far too simplistic.
Jan

Margee - I was a teenager in the UK, and there were some aspects I still cringe about - one of the milder ones was my ownership of a pair of fluorescent pink socks that glowed in the dark, rather like the filling in jelly donuts.

I don't know why genealogists now use the less precise symmetric relationship - maybe it's a US influence, and they figured asymmetry was too hard for their fraternity, rather like their view of geography.

Anyway, what I learned back then was you viewed things from your own perspective so, as David2, I would look at David1's line, extending it with possibly fictional offspring until it got to my generation, then look at that generation who would be 3rd cousins (as you pointed out), and then count the generations to get to David1, so here 2 generations, and also moving up towards Charles. So I would have said David1 was David2's 3rd cousin twice removed upward.

I really don't like the current genealogical practice, where David2's 1st cousin twice removed can either be David1, i.e., his grandparent's 1st cousin, or his own 1st cousin's grandchild - a difference of 4 generations. It really seems rather a bizarre misuse of the terminology.

I can't leave this one alone.
Now I have to disagree with my fellow countryman, mgnv.
Malcolm, there's no way that the 2 Davids were3rd. cousins, either back in the 50's or now. (Say, wasn't it great being a teenager in the 50's? These younguns don't know what they missed!)
If David 1 had a grandchild that grandchild would be a 3rd. cousin of David 2. But as it stands they're 1st. cousins, twice removed and it has to be the same no matter whether you're looking upward or downward.

Dear Moonbeam ..and I genuinely respect your input......I apologise profusely if my remark upset you..'twas not intended.

Derek - I did read your script. Maybe I was making it too simplistic but just giving what in my opinion is one possibility.

Good one Margee....David 2 was the only child that Charles had by his second wife so there was no cousin to marry.....Moonbeam hasn't, with respect, read the script correctly.

David 1 is grandson to Charles...David 2 is the GG Grandson to Charles..born 40 years later than David 1.... then add an extra generation for early marriages.and you get the two generation difference...the only real complication is the second marriage...and as Brummiejan said....from Charles standpoint its easy....the second marriage is irrelevant....they are both his direct descendants two generations apart.....but surely Davids relationship to David ,should they have ever have discussed it..is a matter of FACT...not of viewpoint..
But thanks for all the contributions.
P.S. whether I like it or not..I have a half-brother thanks to my father's wanderings...and i suppose his two children are my half nephew and Half niece...I presume by law.
Derek.

I am going round in circles here, don't know if I am coming or going, or if my right is my left or my left is my right, or am I just standing on my head?

I give in , HELP!!!!!
Kenneth :-S :-S :-S :-S :-S :-S

But David 1 is descended from Charles & 1st. wife, David 2 from Charles & 2nd. wife. So unless David 1 married his cousin the grandaughter of Charles & 2nd. wife, only then could David 1 could be grandfather of David 2.

I think David 1 born 1821 is the grandfather of David 2 born 1861. ;-)

Personally I would never say half cousin but it's what my Familytree Maker says. I think it's wrong.

Meant to say, you don't really say 'half cousins' or 'half 1st cousin once removed' do you, though this is strictly speaking what they would be.
Thanks for the compliment by the way!
Jan

Try this - scroll down the page, there is a chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin

I think it supports what I have said, but haven't tried it yet. Note the box top left of the chart.

EDIT nope, looks like I have got it wrong! Dammit!

Jan

Brilliant response....i think its great fun..thank you Brummiejan for your truly academic analysis..........I think you would be right if it wasn't complicated by the second wife........having said that Charles' parents are common to both lines and therefore in theory..from that point of view..the second wife becomes irrelevant.......and Margee, your argument is just as compelling.........but there is no agreement.......we need another opinion...and mqnv..thanks too but not so sure ,cos your argument is the most complicated of the lot..
As experienced as i am..I have no idea!!

We could extend this to pose similar devious relationships!!...real or imaginary.

well done all.

Derek.

Since there were difft wives as ancestors, I suppose one should properly say half-cousins of whatever degree, rather than cousins.

As a teenager, back in the 1950s, I knew what Jan knew, except that I would have added direction to the removes, so that David2 was David1's 1st cousin twice removed downward, and David1 was David2's 3rd cousin twice removed upward.

Since I've gotten involved in genealogy, I've found that genealogists prefer to use a less precise terminology. They drop the direction of the remove, and use the lower degree cousinship for both, and they say David1 & David2 are 1st cousins twice removed. I don't know why they can;t deal with asymmetric relationships in this case, when they're quite happy with asymmetric relationships between David1 and Charles, calling David1 Charles's grandson. If they were really committed to truly symmetric relationships, David1 and Charles would be each other's grandfather. It seems strange to me that they adopt this halfway measure.
Personally, I would just say David2 is David1's 1st cousins twice removed, and leave it at that - not saying anything about David1's relationship from David2's viewpoint.

Another way to explain:
You have to always work down from the ancestor in common.
Charles children are siblings, his grandchildren 1st. cousins.
His gt. grandchildren 2nd. cousins etc.

In this case it ends at 1st. cousins because David 1 is a grandchild.
David 2 is another 2 generations away. Hence 1st. cousins, twice removed.

I disagree, Jan, the relationship has to be the same for both.

If David Sr. had a grandson he would be a 3rd. cousin of David Jr. (No removes)

Margee, their relationship is different depending on whose point of view you take.

If you are David senior, the younger one is your 1st cousin twice removed.
If you are the younger David, the older one is your 3rd cousin twice removed.

It took me abour 1000 years to figure this out for my own family!! I am pretty certain I am correct, but iIf I am wrong I hope someone can explain it to me!

Jan

I say they are 1st. cousins, twice removed.
Or some would say (because they are descended from different wives of Charles) half 1st. cousins, twice removed.

David 1 and David 2's grandfather are 1st. cousins.
David 1 and David 2's father are 1st. cousins, once removed.
David 1 and David 2 are 1st. cousins, twice removed.