Well, I for one am confused. Since I use the "chart" method and taking
Pete's example;
"I have a
cousin, whom I'll call L, whose 4th great-grandfather (I'll call him H) is
my 2nd great-grandfather. Counting up my line, we are third cousins twice
removed; counting up his line, we are fifth cousins twice removed (removal
in the opposite sense)."
The chart displays, 3rd cousins, twice removed.
How can it be any different?
Dave Goodman
The GOODMAN Clearinghouse
http://www.bcpl.net/~dmg
Baltimore PC Users Group
http://www.baltimorepcug.org
Baltimore County Genealogical Society
http://www.serve.com/bcgs/bcgs.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Research and writing about Virginia genealogy and family history.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Drake
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: VA-ROOTS Digest - 3 Feb 2004 to 4 Feb 2004 (#2004-25)
Sure, you are quite correct, Pete, and what you have said does not differ
from my proven methods in any way. Instead you have added to my words by
suggesting that one must consider WHO is doing the speaking/reckoning. NO
one would disagree with what you say, I am sure.
Indeed, we all have a different perspectives of our families depending
entirely on where in any family tree the researcher fits; one's perspective
will vary, even among 1st cousins. The other difference you point out is a
common problem in all reckoning where there were multiple marriages in the
line being discussed. Still, thanks for extending the explanation for
others. I try to answer all questions with the most general example; I
suppose there are exceptions to every rule in genealogy. Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Priestley Toulmin
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: VA-ROOTS Digest - 3 Feb 2004 to 4 Feb 2004 (#2004-25)
Whoa, Paul, it isn't always that easy -- or obvious. Consider: I have a
cousin, whom I'll call L, whose 4th great-grandfather (I'll call him H) is
my 2nd great-grandfather. Counting up my line, we are third cousins twice
removed; counting up his line, we are fifth cousins twice removed (removal
in the opposite sense). To muddy the waters a bit more, we are descended
from different wives of H, so though H is our closest single common
ancestor, H's parents are our closest common ggrandparents. So you could
make a case for our being:
1. Third (half?) cousins twice removed;
2. Fifth (half?) cousins twice removed;
3. Fourth cousins three times removed; or
4. Sixth cousins three times removed.
Sticking to the shortest-line approach, should we say that L is my third
(half?) cousin twice removed but I am his fifth (half?) cousin twice
removed? Or vice versa? Or am I obsessing over the number of generations
on a pinhead? Could ambiguities like this affect per stirpes computations
in determining inheritance?
Looking forward to your thoughts,
Pete Toulmin
Original message:
>Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 07:49:48 -0600
>From: Paul Drake <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [DRAKE] RE: That "Removed Stuff"
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>I have been asked so many times about the whole business of cousins,
>"removed" and ancestral aunts and uncles. The calculation of those is
>really VERY SIMPLE, yet for years and for reasons that continue to baffle
>me, people have drawn goofy charts and given mystifying and complicated
>explanations of this simple reckoning.
>
>Here is the easy way of it all, and this is all there is to the whole
>matter: Find the MOST recent common ancestor that you share with
>someone else; COUNT the number of "greats" in the title of that ancestor;
>add ONE, and that is the DEGREE of cousinhood. Thus, if we are related
>through a common great-great grandmother (2 greats), take those two
greats
>in her name and add one (2+1=3), so we are third cousins. If our 4th
>great grandfather is our most recent ancestor, we are 5th cousins.
>
>Aunts and uncles are calculated exactly the same way. Take the number
of
>"greats" in the title of the ancestor and add one more "great", and you
>have the title for the aunts and uncles who were brothers and sisters of
>that ancestor. So it is that a sister of your great-grandmother (1
great)
>is your great-great aunt (2 greats).
>
>Now, the "removed" part simply designates the number of generations that
>you and that cousin do NOT share. SO, as to you and your second
>cousin, your children are "once removed" from that cousin, and the
>grandchildren of your second cousin each are your "second cousins, twice
>removed", and on and on.
>
>This is ALL there is to the whole matter.
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
