Genealogy Question: Family Relationships

Factual Questions
21

Okay. That’s just plain spooky.

Her name is Grace Lucy. And if that ain’t spooky enough, she has a half-brother. His name is Georg Ezekiel Aurthur Lucy.

(Sorry, no Petes or Pattys in the tree.)

Substituting names does help bring the relationships into sharper focus.

While I got y’all on the line, something else just occured to me. My eldest grandson has reached that age where he has learned the value of probing questions, and is inquiring about his relation ship to other family members.

Here’s the sticky one: My cousin Jane been married once, and has borne three children with three different, huh, men, none of which were her husband. When asked, she maintains and will swear 'till her dying breath that all of the children were conceived with her husband (Yeah. Right. He was killed in an industrial accident seven weeks after they were married - first child born 22 months after the funeral = somehow the math just does’t work out). And before you ask, no – she never remarried …

For you more experienced geneology folks out there, how does one deal with these relationships (tactfully), knowing that Jane will never, ever fess up and dragging all the evidence out would realllllllyyyyyyy mess up the family reunions?

To tomndebb: Okay, things are begining to move out the fog. Hmmm. Thanks for the additional link. Obviously, I’ve come to the right place to get some questions cleared up. I doubt this ol’ man would have found these web sites by continuing to stumble around out there …

(and as an aside to tomndebb: apology not required, after all – I am in disguise …)

22

Well, presumably there is no doubt all of the children are in fact Jane’s, regardless of who she says the father is. So just state the relationship in terms of Jane. Her children are all brothers and sisters for all practical purposes, even if in reality and genetically they are half-siblings. By the time you get to various degrees of cousinship, it’s just not worth, IMHO, to worry about whether second cousins once removed are really second *half * cousins once removed, or whatever. Or maybe I’m not understanding the question.

23

None of this has any effect on the degree of the relationship between Jane’s children and your grandson. Assuming that Jane is the one who is your blood relative, all of her kids will be cousins of the same degee and kind to your grandson. Jane’s kids will be half-siblings to each other, but that has no effect on other relationships. (If it had been her husband who was your blood relative, none of them would be related at all).

For a family tree, I would just put in the relevant dates and let people draw their own conclusions. (In doing research on my own family tree, I discovered that my great-grandfather was born about 5 months after his parents’ wedding.)

24

Weird how often the first child is “premature,” isn’t it? I noticed that in stories my father told me. Seems there was hardly a virgin bride at any altar anywhere on either side of the family other my mother, when it came right down to it. All were “seduced” before marriage. Except his mother, of course, who married at the advanced age of nearly 40, purely to get out from under the control of her brothers. It was widely speculated that she would never have children, or if she did, she would not survive, but if she did, she would never have more than one. She proceeded to have three – two sons and a daughter – all of whom lived to be grandparents themselves. Dad was pleased by the fact that his birth certificate bore a large “LEGITIMATE” stamp on it. Apparently that was the custom back in at least one part of Pennsylvania in the early part of the 20th century. Too bad if anyone wanted to call him a cheap, miserable bastard. They could be forced to retract the “bastard” part. Sorry for the hijack. Had to share.

25

Oh, you understand it well …

And perhaps your solution, just state the relationship in terms of Jane, would be best after all. Certainly the most tactful way to handle it. Thanks.

Getting back to my OP: Many of most problematical situations to handle are all of the polygamous and multiple marriages within a family. For example; I have one ancestor who had two wives, another had four. Then there comes the addional problem of describing the offspring of these polygamous marriages. In the multiple marriages category, I have one ancestor who may hold a world record: Eighteen succesive wives, 22 children. (16 of his wives died during childbirth - all of the children survived, oddly enough. Long story, not worth going into here.)

So, once again, is there a standard which has been adopted regarding the nomenclature of relationships? Is there, out there somewhere on the 'Net, The Difinitive Site? Sorta like “The College of Geneological Research & Standards” or some such place? I’ve been to the LDS Geneological Library in SLC (NO, I’m not …) and their Family History site and a few dozen other similar sites as well. I just can’t seem to find a standard.

The sites linked in this thread have helped clear up the cousins thing, but I’m still looking for that (perhaps non-existant) site that provides a “Geneological Glossary” of terms used to describe family relationships …

Anyone?

Thanks again

26

Well, if two people share one parent, they are generally termed half-siblings (half brother, half sister). If they share no parents by birth at all, they are step-siblings (think Brady Bunch). I suppose the relationship between a Brady boy’s child and a Brady girl’s child would technically be step-cousins.

If you want a short family tree that shows multiple marriages and children, look at the geneology of Henry VIII. Queen Mary I, Queen Elizabeth I and King Edward VI were all half-siblings, since Henry was their father but they had different mothers. Of course, there were no half-cousins to deal with since none of the three had offspring.

27

Technically, I think they would actually be regarded as unrelated, although they might be described as “step-cousins.”

AFAIK there is also no such thing as “half cousins” either; you are either cousins or you are not.

My mother’s sister married a guy with kids of his own, and they had a daughter together. Their daughter is my first cousin; technically speaking her step-siblings are unrelated to me, though we regard ourselves as “cousins by courtesy.”

28

Sounds logical.

On a tangent: Does anyone have a genealogy software program to recommend? I have a paper copy of my paternal grandmother’s family that goes back to the 1300s in Germany. I’ve often thought it would be awesome to create a family tree, and to update it into the 20th century, but the amount of data available now is daunting.

29

It’s not even a question of tact. No matter what the circumstances of the kids’ conceptions, you’d still be stating the relationships in terms of Jane, because that’s who the relationships are in terms of. Your cousin Jane (First cousin, not removed, I presume?) has sex with a man (presumably) unrelated to you. She has a child. That child is then your first cousin once removed. Who the father actually is, and whether he was married to Jane at the time, is completely irrelevant, so far as you’re concerned. It would make a difference to her husband’s kin, if they cared (I suppose they could also call the children stepcousins, though this would have a different meaning than in the Brady Bunch case).

30

You’re not a Tueller are you?

I use Cumberland Family Tree. Fairly inexpensive, pretty simple interface. You can find them at this site and, if I recall correctly, you can download a free trial version to see if it will do what you want it to do …

31

OOOOOkkkkkaaaayyyy …

To sum up what I’m hearing here:

“… are generally termed …”

“… I think they would actually be regarded as unrelated, although **they might be described ** as “step-cousins”.”

“… **technically speaking ** her step-siblings are unrelated to me, though we regard ourselves as “cousins by courtesy”.”

“… I **suppose ** the relationship between … would **technically ** be step-cousins.”

“Technically, I **think ** they would actually be regarded as unrelated, **although they might be described ** as “step-cousins”.”

“… **second cousins once removed are really second half cousins ** once removed …”

“… there is also no such thing as “half cousins” either; you are either cousins or you are not.”

Bolding is mine – I just did a copy and paste without attributing quotes to anyone, because I’m certainly not trying to create a train wreck here, emphasis is added in an attempt to clarify my request.

There are a lot of contradictions, corrections, and other such vagaries surrounding genealogy. There does not seem to be a standard that everyone has adopted.

I got bit by the genealogy bug about 15 years ago, give or take a couple, and would probably be a completely rabid genealogist by now if it weren’t for the fact that every time I get together with other “hobbyists” to discuss and compare notes it always seems to turn into a train wreck and what derails the whole thing is the terminology.

If I may give an example:

I recently discovered that a relationship existed between two of my ancestors. The evidence was supported by copies of both birth and marriage certificates. I took this little gem of information (and a lot more) to an annual family genealogy conference to share it with others and find out what everyone else had learned.

What had started out as a very productive, entertaining, and fun exchange of information representing a years worth of research and hard work by seven people degenerated into a fight between an aunt and a cousin as to how to describe the relationship that I had uncovered.

It sounded an awful lot like what I copied and pasted above. “I think …” “I suppose …” “Technically speaking …” “there is no such thing as …”

No more discussion about the family tree. No more sharing of information, data or evidence. Just a train wreck over terminology. Oh, how I wish that I could have pulled out a book and pointed to a chart and stopped that fight by simply saying “See, according to this table in the “World Conference on Genealogy Standard Terminology” which is *the * authoritative standard used by genealogists all over the world the relationship would be described as “X” …”

It’s been gnawing at me for weeks now. Well, actually years – it happens (nearly) every time I get into a discussion about genealogy. It should be noted here that I really don’t care much what label is used or even how a particular relationship should or should not be labeled (or even if?). I’m just looking for a standard set of rules which I can use to stop the brawl in the middle of the floor.

Surely there must be a Standard out there somewhere, isn’t there? If there isn’t, don’t you think it about time somebody came up with one???

32

I couldn’y resist. I’m My Own Grandpa

33

My family tree program (Brother’s Keeper) allows you to define a parent’s relationship to a child. I would put Jane’s husband in as the father and he would appear as such on the reports, but I would define him as either “Step Father” or “Other” (the other options being “Adopted Father” and “Foster Father”) and the only indication would be the italicizing of the word “Father” in the program. Jane and family don’t get offended and your records still have all the available facts recorded (you just have to bring up the Parent Type screen to see that “Dad” is defined as Step/Other).

Actually, Brother’s Keeper wouldn’t go quietly along with Jane. If you run the Reasonableness Check, it would pick up Jane’s kids for being born too long after their father’s death. Probably best not to show her* that* report. :slight_smile:

34

Based on a quick review of the genealogyPro Glossary of Genealogy Terms, there may not be the names you are seeking. Based on the notion that most genealogies are lineal with either ascending or descending focus, it is quite possible that providing actual names for collateral events have never been reckoned sufficiently important to establish a uniform nomenclature.

Ancestry.com has a page identifying the various numeric nomenclatures under Organizing Your Genealogy and they seem to imply a similar point.

If you are bound and determined to get the language right, you can have fun (go nuts?) browsing the entries on this list of Genealogy Dictionaries & Glossaries.

35

LucyInDisguise writes:

> Many of most problematical situations to handle are all of the polygamous and
> multiple marriages within a family.

It’s hard for me to tell, but I don’t think any of the marriages in your family could be described as polygamous. Each of the multiple marriages that you describe are the result of a spouse dying and the person then remarrying. That’s not polygamous. Polygamy only occurs when someone marries a second person while still married to the previous spouse. If the previous spouse is dead or they are divorced from them, it’s not polygamy.

On the other hand, I’m worried about this situation:

> In the multiple marriages category, I have one ancestor who may hold a world
> record: Eighteen succesive wives, 22 children. (16 of his wives died during
> childbirth - all of the children survived, oddly enough. Long story, not worth
> going into here.)

This is so wildly improbable that I’d be really suspicious about this guy. In a recent thread about the TV show Bonanza we joked about how it was suspicious that all three of Ben Cartwright’s wives died in childbirth. Did he actually murder them, we speculated. Sixteen wives dying in childbirth. That’s incredibly unlikely. Are you sure you’ve got the story straight here?

It’s not so strange that you don’t know all the relationship terms. They are useful for most ordinary situations, so it’s reasonable that someone might not learn their meaning till they are an adult. I was in college before I learned what the term “first cousin once removed” meant.

36

No doubt individual geneological societies have particular standards, but to expect there to be some universal standard I think is unreasonable. After all, there is no single stanadard for classification in biology, there being separate authorities for plants, animals, and microorganisms.

The best you are going to be able to do is to pick some reference or definitions as used by a particular geneological society and go by that. When somebody disputes your usage ask them to provide a CITE! according to good SDMB GQ SOP.

Much of the hedging you identified in the postings above is due to the fact that most of us here are not true experts on geneology, and are trying to avoid being nit-picked to death by other posters, according to good SDMB GQ SOP. :wink:

37

I just knew this would come up …
I even tried to avoid it …

Oh, well. You asked for it, so here we go:

Ancestor (hereinafter referred to as D.) was age 16 years at the time of his first child’s birth. His wife of 22 days was 14 and failed to survive the experience.
D. remarried 2 months, 3 days later.
Wife #2 gave birth 10 months later, failed to survive. D. remarried (a somewhat disrespectful?) 2 weeks and 2 days later. (Suspect he had no clue how to deal with the kids?)
Wives 3 thru 12 nearly identical timelines and circumstances.
Wife #13 fared a little better: 3 children before she died from (suspected) heart attack/disease.
Wives 14 thru 17 copied wives 1 thru 12. (I gave up trying to figure this out (or explain it) ages ago …)
Wife #18 (hereinafter referred to as F.): had three children with D. before D. died. Since F. was only 24 years old at the time D. died, she found a man (J.) that was willing to take on this brood and married him two years later. Oddly enough (at least I think it’s odd), F. had 4 more children with J. before she died (you guessed folks: during childbirth – neither mother nor child survived. Would have been her eighth!)

I can see where anyone would be suspicious. It is *soooooo improbable * that I think it defies probability analysis. I didn’t actually find D. – he was found by a cousin – but I did spend 2 1/2 years helping my cousin put together and verify the doumentation. Ya shoulda been there when all the documentation (birth/death/marriage certificates/census records, property deeds, etc.) were presented to the family – all tied up together in a pretty bundle – talk about a train wreck!

(It should be noted that one of the grandsons of the 2nd child in the marriage of F. & J. has made it his lifes work to try (unsuccessfully) to prove that the marriage certificate for F. & J. is a forgery/fake. (Keeps getting tripped up on the corroborating census records from 1890. At his age, he should know better. Some how ya just can’t argue with that kind of documentation …)

To address the subject of the other kind of suspicions (believe me, it’s come up before): all of the deaths were attend by either midwives or doctors. Seven of the death certificates list 2 or more witnesses, which makes the whole thing just that much more bizarre.

btw: I do know what polygamous marriages are, think I listed 2 in that post … yep, 2:

That’s not all of 'em, either. However, I realize now that I reread my post that I should have add the words “at the same time” in there somewhere, so I can certainly see where you might have found it difficult to tell. :slight_smile:

Lucy

P.S.
to tom: thanks for the really fantastic links. These may be just what I’m looking for …

and, to Colibri: You are, of course, correct. “… expect[ing] there to be some universal standard …” is, in fact, unreasonable. I was only hoping … Any recomendations regarding “a particular geneological society” would be appreciated.

Then all I’ll have to do is convince everyone else in the family to go along.
Sigggghhhhhgh …

38

No, not a Tueller. Thanks for the suggestion. I’m downloading the trial version now. I’ve already got a trial version of the Legacy Family Tree software; I’ll see how this one compares.

39

I wrote:

> They are useful for most ordinary situations, so it’s reasonable that someone
> might not learn their meaning till they are an adult.

I meant:

> They are not useful for most ordinary situations, so it’s reasonable that
> someone might not learn their meaning till they are an adult.