But that’s just a function of the word “cousin” in general. I am my aunt’s niece and my niece’s aunt - but no matter what degree/remove of cousin we are talking about, the same description is used for both parties. I am the first cousin of my first cousin and so on.
This is my confusion, then. If he’s your “first cousin once removed” are you not his first cousin once removed? Or second cousin once removed?
Joe Btfsplk (the Li’l Abner character with the raincloud, described as the world’s worst jinx) once remarked upon visiting his cousins “many times removed”
“Every time I go visit them, they remove.”
Yes, that’s my understanding—it isn’t like “I’m your uncle and you’re my nephew” where you have different titles, so to speak. You both say you’re first cousins once removed. ISTM there’s room for misunderstanding because that would also describe the child of any first cousin you have, but English lacks precision. E.g., am I your uncle because of blood or because I married your aunt?
I think a lot of charts go back to what the common ancestor is. If you have the same parents, you’re siblings, about 50% common DNA. If you have the same grandparents, you’re first cousins, about 12.5%. According to this source for a first cousin once removed, 6.25% average. If the common ancestor is great-grandparents, you’re second cousins, 3.13%.
If that person (first cousin once removed) has a child, you are second cousins with that child. If that second cousin has a child (the grandchild of your first cousin once removed), you’re second cousins once removed.
There’s a nice explanation here, along with charts which help a lot.
Not necessarily. You could be first cousin twice removed. It depends on which person has the offspring.
Looking back, yeah…first cousin twice removed is right. You’d need an earlier common ancestor to be second cousins.
I think your uncle or aunt is your zeroeth cousin once removed.
It could be either one. Consider two cousins A and B. B has a child C, so A and C are first cousins once removed. Which one of A and C has the child determines the relationship to the other. If C grows up and has a child D, then A and D are first cousins twice removed. But if A has a child E, then E and C are second cousins.
I also feel compelled to bring up an interesting point, on the subject of first cousins once removed. My dental hygienist mistakingly believes first cousins once removed were second cousins. We were talking about my first cousins once removed, and she made that comment.
Anyways, that’s not my point. My point is, what if a judge makes that mistake? Because first cousins once removed are still too closely related in Michigan (where I live), to get a valid marriage certificate.
So if that happens, are you validly married, or not (since it was, in my example, the judge’s mistake)? 
But I phrased it
which would have to be first cousins twice removed.
How about double first cousins? If two sibs from one family marry two sibs from another family, their children will be twice as related. Siblings have (on avg) 50% same DNA, cousins 12.5%, but double cousins are 25%. That’s what you’d have in a half sibling relationship. First cousins once removed? Only 6.25%.
If you have an expert, they’d probably use numbers. Horse breeders must know all about this stuff. I can see where a state might say ok to first cousins for marriage, but not double first cousins, because of the higher chance of inbreeding problems.
I knew a woman from the Middle East who told me that marrying cousins over there is pretty common. Some of the countries are very strict about dating. The laws are relaxed about family members spending time as a family, which allows them to get to know their cousins.
I have a friend who is a blood relative of his wife by more ways than he can count. He belongs to a certain ethnic/religious group that keeps very good genealogical records and practice polygamy, especially among the aristocratic families. So you can have first cousins that are not children of two full siblings.
No, it’s one or the other. “Removed” is how many generations you have to go up or down on the family tree. So if your first cousin once removed who is your parent’s first cousin has a child, you are second cousins. But if your first cousin once removed who is the child of your first cousin has a child, that’s your first cousin twice removed.
I’ve always wondered this. I have first half-cousins (share one grandparent, thus two great-grandparents) and second double-cousins (share 0 grandparents, but share four great-grandparents). Which set is more closely related? Whom should I hit up for that kidney first?
I’m not as much a fan of pibling as I am of nibling. The -ling suffix has this diminutive quality to me, implying a younger relative. I guess I’m so used to “sibling” that this aspect doesn’t register, but it definitely does with those other words.
I do note that Chrome (for Windows) spellcheck seems to disagree, though. It only underlines nibling, not pibling.
Okay, I don’t think anyone posted this. In Italian families/communities, comare (f) [co-mahr-ay] and compare (m) [comb-pahr-ay] are the catch-all terms for anyone in one’s parents’ or grandparents’ generation who is not a parent or grandparent. Takes care of all the removed cousins, and neighbors and so forth who are very close but not blood. My dad had a comare Lucy who would have been his aunt by marriage, if Grandpa’s brother hadn’t been killed in the Great War. The family kept including her in events, such as inviting her to weddings. And at one of those weddings she met the groom’s co-worker, and he was close enough that (what we now call) their two friend groups overlapped. So they were Comare Lucy and Compare Joe.
Wait. What? I’m gonna need a cite for that. Brother and sister (sibling) are fundamental close relatives. Their existence has been important for inheritance, royal succession, and so forth. An English word for them must surely go back farther than a hundred years.
1903:
As you can see, the word has next to zero cites until after 1920. There may have been an archaic definition, but it was no longer part of the language until revived as a specialized term.
OK, I see what you’re saying. Wow, yeah it’s ambiguous.
Coefficient of relationship page
Half first cousin: 6.25%
Second double cousins: 6.25%
Awhile back I read about three-quarter siblings…man and woman produce child, man dies, brother marries widow and they have child, for instance. Is there a one-quarter sibling? You can’t share half a parent, but you could share one grandparent.