Genealogy Wise

The Genealogy & Family History Social Network

Once removed.....twice removed...etc. Exactly what does that mean?

I know this may sound silly, but I do not know?

And how do you use proberly?

Views: 10471

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well Lisa I think once removed ... twice removed means to do away with. And probably means maybe or most likely. And no you don't sound silly. You would be surprised at how many people don't under stand the word thay use or the text thay use them in.
Ok, well let me ask another twist to the question. My grandfather and my granduncle married sisters, their children are double first cousins. Right? and the double first cousins children are then.... what? 2nd cousins?
Yeah. Mine too. Then my great Uncles did the same. My gggrandfather's sister married his son's wife's brother too. Please note: by marriage--in many generations 1700-1850 or so.
I just call them all cuzzins.
Online Help
Kathryn Brannigan Walizer
Cousins


Many times when working on family history, it's handy to know how to describe your family relationships, To determine how two individuals are related can be a daunting task, when going back in the generations, especially the once and twice and three times removed cousins. Fear not there is help out there in cyberspace.

The web site www.iroots.net has a pop up cousin calculator along with a table that is based on the system used by courts and most genealogical societies.

First cousins are people in your family who have the same grandparents.
Second cousins are people in your family who have the same great-grandparents.
Third cousins have the same great-great-grandparents.
Fourth cousins have the same great-great-great-grandparents,
Fifth cousins have the same great-great-great-great-grandparents.

Now here is the tricky part that sends most of us around the bend.
“Removed“, when the word "removed" is used to describe a relationship, it indicates that the two people are from different generations. So your mothers first cousin would be your first cousin once removed and first cousins children are second cousins to each other.
Twice removed means that there is a two-generation difference. If you are two generations younger than a first cousin of your grandmother, you and your grandmother's first cousin are first cousins, twice removed

To determine the relation ship you must know how you are related to the common ancestor.

Rules for Using a Relationship Chart
Pick two people in your family and figure out the ancestor they have in common.
On the top row of the chart find the first person's relationship to the common ancestor.
CA stands for the common ancestor
On the far left column of the chart find the second person's relationship to the common ancestor.
Mark where the row and column containing those two relationships meet. This will be the relationship of the two persons.

To further help explain how to use the relationship chart I have put together a chart of the ancestors of my family and those of a cousin the common ancestor in this case dates back to the 1700’s there are no other common ancestors.

What the following shows is the relationship between Robert and Paul using the chart and the common ancestor “William Laird.” The line where they intersect shows that they are 5th cousins, once removed. William being the Fourth great-grandfather of Robert and the 5th great-grandfather of Pau
Estate lawyers have a chart-print that looks like a family tree of generations of "cousins" horizintally and "numbers removed" verticly.

My question: theoretically all people in ten generations have a maximium of 2,002 ancestors? But since most of us in ten generations descend from our same ancestor more than once, in different ways; which results in most folks being related to themselves, as their own second cousin three times removed--or some such.

What is the far-outist relationship that anyone has ever had with themselves?
I have been wondering how many ancestors I might have...

Two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents... If I continue this series back at 3 generations per century, I find I have over a billion Viking-era ancestors. And 10^18 in the Roman era. And so on. This is plainly wrong. Where is the flaw in the logic?

I am told the flaw's this: I've presumed each couple has only one child, so a pyramid is formed which expands in size as you go backwards. Actually, people had on average many more than two children for the last 2000+ years, so as the groups intermarry, grandparenting for 12 or 20 means there's duplication in the figures. I'm counting child-grandparent LINKS not the actual number of people: 2 grandparents with 20 grandkids would show up as 20 by my counting. I may have 10^18 ancestor-links, but due to cross-breeding (often miles apart on the family tree), that's fewer actual PEOPLE by far. Easy example: g/g/parents have two kids, both marry, one offspring from each marriage marry together: my parents. Therefore I have 2p, 4gp, 6ggp - not 8ggp. And so on. More duplication as I go up.
I think it goes like this: siblings have children: They are first cousins. Sibling A's child is 1st cousin once removed to the grandchild of sibling B. Sibling A's child becomes 1st cousin twice removed to the next generation of children. Children of each of the first cousins are second cousins to each other. Their children then become 3rd cousins.

A: John Siblings B Mary

children: Tom; Pete First Cousins children Patty; Jane

grandchildren Steve; Alan Second Cousins grandchildren Sue; Nancy

Tom and Pete are fist cousins once removed to Sue and Nancy
Patty and Jane are first cousins once removed to Steve and Alan, etc.

Hope that helps.
I should have read all the answers before posting- sorry if this is redundant.

RSS

Members

Badge

Loading…

© 2014   Created by Nat Ins for Genealogical Studies.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service