I sometimes hear someone describe a relative as “first cousin once removed” or “twice removed” or something…does anyone know what this means?
Your name is Albert. You have a brother named Ben.
Your child’s name is Chris. Ben’s child’s name is David.
Chris has a son Elmer. David has a son Fred.
Elmer has a son Greg. Fred has a son Hector.
To recap:
A ------ B
| |
C D
| |
E F
| |
G H
Now then:
Chris and David are (first) cousins.
Chris and Fred are first cousins once removed. Chris and Hector are first cousins twice removed.
Elmer and Fred are second cousins. Greg and Hector are third cousins.
Here’s the rule of thumb: cousins n removed are relatives who are on different genealogical levels, and the degree of removal is the number of generations separating them. n cousins are cousins who are of the same generation, and the degree of cousinhood is the number of generations you have to go back up to reach blood siblings.
Got it?
Part of the confusion is that, by some definitions, Chris and Fred are second cousins.
See http://www.dictionary.com for instance, under second cousin. That’s the American Heritage Dictionary definition:
second cousin (sknd kzn) n. The child of one’s first cousin.
But regardless, your child is your xxxx-cousin’s xxxx-cousin, once removed.
Here’s the way I remember it:
Count backwards to the nearest common ancestor. The smallest number of steps taken is the # of the cousin (1 step is aunt/uncle-niece/nephew, 2 steps is first cousins, etc.) and the difference in the number of steps is level of removal.
Thus looking at chris and hector: chris is two steps from the common ancestor, hector is 4 steps from the common ancestor. Thus they are 1st cousins (lowest number of steps=2) and they are twice removed (difference of numbers of steps=2)
Under the same rubric, greg is 4 steps from common ancestor, fred is 3 steps: thus they are second cousins, once removed.
Albert is Hectors great-great uncle (2 levels of removal=great, 3=double great, etc.)
The ‘removed’ part is as in, “removed from that generation.” Your first cousin, once removed, is one generation away from being the same as your generation.
Believe me, it all makes sense once you get the hang of it, but it doesn’t lend itself to an easy explanation. If your own extended family is large enough to put names to the various relationships, it’ll come clearer.
Not at all. It is an accounting of how many times you have been thrown out of a place, usually a high-class beanery where the waiters wear white shirts. This commonly happens when the staff is tardy bringing a spittoon and you have to spit a wad of chaw on the rug.
In Arkansas, ‘once removed’ and ‘twice removed’ means it’s OK to get married.
Not sure how it works, but my geneology software informs me George Washington (yeah that George Washington) is my 3rd cousin 8 times removed. His 2 G Grandfather is my 10 G Grandfather.
Hmmm… I learned it slightly differently
The children of my first cousin are my first-cousins-once-removed. However, it’s not reciprocal. We aren’t 1st-once-removed to each other. I am their second cousin.
Kind of like my mom’s sister is my aunt but we aren’t aunts to each other.
MlF
Cecil Adams on familial nomemclature.
I can only imagine the amount of s**t I’m gonna take for this, but…
My mom and dad are first cousins once removed (my mom is a generation older than my dad, yet she’s four years younger–go figure). This makes me my own cousin once removed. My brothers and sisters are also first cousins once removed from me. My father is my first cousin twice removed AND my first cousin once removed. My mother is my first cousin thrice removed AND my first cousin twice removed.
Any questions?
Yes. How many fingers do you have?
Sorry - but you knew it was coming.
Eight.
On which hand?
I think we did this before, but in what USAn states is it illegal to marry your first cousin? I seem to recall that the answer is none.
I knew a family once in which a pair of sisters married a father and son. The sisters were more than 10 years apart in age, the father was a widower and the older sister was a widow who also had a child by her first marriage. So there wasn’t even any divorces involved, the age differences for the couples weren’t that unusual, and neither union represented anything close to incest biologically. However, given any children, YOU figure out who is related to who how - if the younger couple has kids, their grandfather (by blood) is also their uncle (by marriage), and their aunt is their grandmother.
Intermarriage!! All bets are off.
You’re making this needlessly more complicated than it should be. Let’s try a little chart here:
Ac
/ \
Pm Gf
| |
M Pf
| |
J F
|
J
Ac is the ancestor your parents share in common. Pm is your mother’s parent in that line, Gf is your father’s grandparent (Pm’s sibling), M is your mother, Pf is your father’s parent (M’s cousin), F is your father, and J is - of course - jamshid.
As was stated in Cecil’s column referred to above, the “once removed” relationship is not mutual. Therefore F is M’s first cousin once removed, while M is Pf’s cousin, and that’s how F probably would have referred to her if they only knew each other instead of marrying each other.
Ya with me so far? Too bad.
From a purely generational standpoint, J is F’s second cousin and M’s first cousin twice removed. And that’s it. If you were to put all J’s siblings in M’s line and keep J in F’s line, your siblings would be F’s second cousins, and J would be their second cousin once removed.
But as I said at the beginning, all bets are off. You are your parents’ child, as are your siblings. The “who’s on first (once removed)” routine simply loses validity and becomes an empty exercise in rhetoric and trivia. Makes for an easier family tree to trace, however.
To paraphrase the great Peter Venkman: “Back off, man. I’m a genealogist.”
Hmm, in my family (large extended family, no known inbreeding), we’ve always used the “once-removed” business reciprocally… If it’s not, what’s the proper term for the other direction? Is there even a term more specific than just “cousin” or “kinsfolk”?
To put it in specifics: Jeff is my first cousin, and his son is Steven. According to Olentzero, Steven would be my first cousin once removed, fine. In my family, we would also say that I’m Steven’s first cousin once removed, but Olentzero says that’s wrong. What am I, to Steven, then?