What’s the deal with Nth cousins, N times removed?
A
/ \
B C
D E
F G
H I
J K
L M
N O
P Q
So going down the B and C are siblings. D and E are (first) cousins. F and G are 2nd cousins. H and I are 3rd cousins and so forth.
J and K are 4th cousins.
J and I are 3rd cousins once removed.
J and G are 2nd cousins twice removed.
J and E are 1st cousins 3 times removed.
It is a relationship
Adam has a son -> Bob
Eve has a daughter -> Mary
Bob and Mary are First Cousins to each other. The children of siblings are cousins to each other
Bob has a son -> Joe
Mary has a daughter -> Anne
(see boys have boys girls have girls 
)
Joe and Anne are SECOND cousins to each other. The childred of CHILDREN of siblings are second cousins TO EACH OTHER.
Bob and Anne are first cousins ONCE REMOVED.
What are they removed from. They are removed from the FIRST COUSIN.
Extend this.
Joe has a son -> Pete
Anne has a daughter ->Carol
(in keeping with the family way of things girls having girls )
Pete and Carol are THIRD cousins to each other.
Pete and Anne are Second Cousins ONCE removed. He is ONE generation from his second cousin.
Pete is Mary’s First cousin THRICE (thrice?) removed. He is three generations away from the first cousin.
Etc etc.
That’s what I thought. Thanks.
So let’s see.
My sister is zeroth cousin.
My neice is my zeroth cousin once removed.
My mother is my negative first cousin once removed.
My aunt is my negative second cousin once removed.
Er yeah.
Simply put, the “Nth” bizzo refers to separation horizintally along the same generation (the greater the number, the further back the common anscestor) , and separation by virtue of different generations gives you the “removed” stuff".
(The relatives in my family who know how to spell are distantly related indeed) :rolleyes:
Well no. What you do is take any two people and find their common ancestor. Which ever one is furthest (if they are the same then they are not removed) from that common ancestor consider your base. Now count down beginning with that common ancestor until you reach your base like so (self, sibling, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc.)
Let’s imagine our base is at 8th cousin. That’s 10 generations. Let’s imagine the person he’s related too is only 5 generations down. That’s a difference of 5. So take 5 steps away from the cousin part and add it too the removed part.
So we had
8th cousin 0 times removed
then we did a -5 and +5
3rd cousin 5 times removed.
You never use it for things like siblings, ancestors or siblings of ancestors. They are what they already are.
I am 26th cousin, 4 times removed, from HRH Prince Charles of England. Our common ancestor died in 1331.
Congratulations, Qadgop, your Royal Highness.
Think of how proud the Royals must be.
“My twenty-sixth cousin four times removed, the doctor.” Almost makes up for that whole Princess Di unpleasantness.
Regards,
Shodan
I am a descendent of both Charlemange and Muhammad (but you probably are also if you are of European ancestry). Furthermore, both Confucious and Nefertiti can be found in my family tree (but if you’re alive, they’re also in yours). See this article from the Atlantic Monthly.
Charles the mangey, notcynical? I tend to refer to my umpty-great grandpaw conquerer as Karol de Groot, or papa Karl myself.
Nice article, though. Thanks.
Another way to look at cousins and blood relatives, besides “Nth cousins M times removed”, is according to the degree of kinship.
The Roman method determined this by starting with one person, counting back generations to the common ancestor, then down to the other person. [Degree = 2(N+1)+ M ]
The Saxon method simply counted back to the common ancestor. [Degree = N + 1, ignoring M ]
The distinction between the two systems mattered greatly in the Middle Ages, when marriages within a prescribed degree of kinship (sometimes ridiculously so) were forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church. Two people who are fourth-degree kin according to the Roman method (first cousins, uncle & great-niece) are more closely related than fourth-degree kin according to the Saxon method (third cousins). If there were a ban on marriages between people of fourth-degree kinship or less, obviously: (a) you’d want to know how this was reckoned; and (b) you’d need to be able to trace your lineages back far enough (in either case) to prove or disprove the degree of kinship.
Note: I’m reasonably certain I have the naming correct, but it is possible that I have reversed the Roman and Saxon labels for these methods.
That can’t be right. Times removed is the generational difference. My family had a “Cousin Hazel”, who was my maternal grandfather’s first cousin. She was therefore my mother’s *first * cousin once removed, and my *first *twice removed.
I’m assuming that what you really mean is that you are Prince Charles’ fourth cousin 26 times removed.
Nope, I got it right the first time. There have been 4 generations of slippage since our common ancestor died nearly 7 centuries ago. That’s not unexpected. To be his 4th cousin 26 times removed one of us would have to be only 6 generations down the line from the common ancestor. All 6th generation descendants of the guy who died in 1331 have been dead for at least 3 and a half centuries.
To put it another way, the common ancestor was my 31x great grandfather, and Charles’s 27x great grandfather.
My Mother is my fourth cousin once removed.
That’s what I get for researching the family tree.
Ain’t genealogy great dwyr? I’m my own 7th cousin.