mind boggling textural relationships

Ask a silly question, and you'll get a silly answer is a trite old saying so when I asked what relationship existed between myself and a male person who I believed was a distant family member, I was given the answer in a Genealogical program that he was my ...father's mother's father's sister's son's daughter's husband, so I suppose that makes my question silly. Even the easier explanation of him being my ...'father's second cousin's daughter's husband' is still difficult to take in. (It reminds me of the old Music Hall song ..."I danced with the man who danced with the lady who danced with the Prince of Wales")

I only asked in the first place because I was intrigued to have found a family long established in Kent (where I now reside but born Birmingham as most people in the Forum know) who supposedly related back to my secondary paternal line of Westbury. Of course a pedigree chart is far easier to understand than a cumbersome text relationship. But to be fair, if I tried to explain the connection in textural fashion, I too would have to fallback on the fact that my father's second cousin had a daughter who married the man in question. But without understanding the descendant line to the second cousin, it is pretty meaningless which is why I told one of my sister's he was something to do with Grandma Spiers family. She could relate to that and accepted my explanation thank goodness.

 

Sometimes less is more.

 

I know where you got that from, Bob - Legacy!! I've had similar relationships and they always make me smile! "Something to do with the family" makes far more sense but raises less of a smile!

 

Actually a more important relationship question arose out of exploring the family connection I posted above.

It came about that the daughter of the man whose relationship I explored -who through her mother was distantly related to my secondary paternal Westbury line (we were third cousins once removed) - wanted to know if her boyfriend from Birmingham (my primary maternal first cousin once removed) and she were related? I could see why she asked and was able to assure her most assuredly they were not related.

The boys mother (my first cousin) who was present asked me to explain as she knew both were technically related to me. Which is when I recounted the old Music Hall song about dancing with the Prince of Wales (see previous). I said it explains humorously that merely dancing with someone who danced with someone else does not constitute a relationship with the Prince. I further illustrated the point by saying we are cousins because my mother and her father were siblings. I then asked how much she knew aboout my paternal girl cousin (our father's were brothers)? I guessed very little (which she confirmed) and added there is no reason why you should other than through family dialogue (like now), and because neither of you is related to the other. Indeed, for what it's worth, were I not the so called Family Historian, I would know very little about her maternal cousins, or indeed your maternal cousins.

I concluded by saying that unless first cousins married first cousins (and believe it or not it is not illegal merely discouraged because of possible genetic defect when children are born to them) then as a general rule paternal and maternal cousins do not relate.

 

It was Tribal Pages on this occasion as, at the time, I was not yet up to speed with Legacy. But when things get convoluted as with the example given, most FH programs if asked for a relationship between 'x' and 'y' seem to prefer to set out the pedigree line in text format.

Actually when it comes down to one's own genealogical relationships (how anyone in my Tree relates to me) I find Ancestry explains in the simplest terms, even when the relationship is convoluted. You will need an Ancestry Tree and be set as the 'Home Person' of course.

Couldn't use Ancestry at the time as I had not extended the family line in my Ancestry Tree. Now it is extended the male person is shown as the husband of my 3rd cousin, and the daughter as my 3rd cousin one removed, which is how I described her in the posting. And yes that came from Legacy!

 

I do have a tree on Ancestry as well. I must check what it has put for one of those convoluted relationships.

 

I rather like the way that HuMo-gen calculates and displays relationships. It provides both a textual and graphical display of the relationship between any two selected individuals.

HuMo-gen is a web based application that has to be hosted on your own web space. It's an ideal method of displaying trees and data to friends and family. Anyone can view the data but living people are protected unless the viewer is registered on the site. Different levels of access are allowed. Mine is here.

 

Yes agreed Norman, the best of both worlds in one display. The graphical is more or less what is offered in my Tribal pages web page, but for some reason best known to themselves TP insists the text should relate to each descendant step, rather than provide the precise end relationship. I shall take a look at your web page later.

In my old FTL program once on an ancestor's page, I merely selected 'Kinship Report' and within a few seconds everyone related within the Tree would be shown and the relationship would be perfectly understandable. I am trying out Legacy and that wears many hats. It is precise like Ancestry (and I expect FTM although haven't tested it) in advising relationships to me (which often is all I want), but less endearing when I want to know what 'x' is to 'y', then it seems to favour the TP approach. Otherwise Legacy satisfies in many ways and even exceeds in some areas so will stay with it.

 

x is to y is easy with Legacy but then I don't know about Tribal pages or FTL. Anyhow, I expect you've found it, Bob. Click on Tools, then Relationship, then select your left person and right person, and Bob's your uncle!!

 

Yes Gilliam, you advised about that earlier, and have checked quite a few examples.But it still follows TP format by offering complicated steps.You know the type like the examples I quoted previously. What I would like is the same concise way it tells me a final relationship as it does on the pedigree page showing how they relate to me. It may exist of course and early days for me.

 

This all sounds/reads very complicated (particularly as my uncles were Larry and Lee, not Bob. )

Norman's chart seems to be the simplest explanation and is how I determine relationships manually. I don't know of any software that would show family relationships for most of my relatives as I keep each surname in a separate tree to keep the chart displays simple. I then have the relationship to me of each blood relative entered in their details of the appropriate tree.

For those members who don't understand how to work the relationships out for themselves, I offer a few words to go with Norman's chart.

1. Trace back/up from each subject family member (aka x and y elsewhere) to find the most recent common ancestor.
2. The first generation coming forward from that common ancestor are siblings, ie 0th cousins, of each other.
3. The next generation, coming forward from the siblings, are 1st cousins.
4. The next generation, coming forward from the 1st cousins, are 2nd cousins, and so on until the bottom of one leg is reached.
5. Count the number of extra generations in the longer leg to determine how many times "removed" they are.

I suspect that finding the common ancestor will be the hardest part in most situations, especially where there are many generations involved.

If anyone has a simpler way to describe all of this then please speak up.

 

Here's the page I put on my web site.

 

Yes that is quite clear and concise and more so than the one I have pinned to my study wall even though the information is the same. (With your permission Norman I may well exchange the one on my wall for a copy of your own)

The one I currently have is a blown up version of a Standard Chart available on the Internet. The same one has also been previously mentioned in the Forum and alluded to by Peter from time to time, both within the Forum and in Newsletters. It took me a while to understand how it worked even with genealogical experience, and judging by the bewildered looks I get from family and friends, most are totally bamboozled when they come to determine how they relate to others in the family.

They just cannot get their head around once/twice removed or second/third cousin (never mind further afield) and have even had my own daughter disagree with me when I corrected her reference to a 'second cousin' by saying ...'actually a first cousin once removed'. I always show in my Tribal Pages the correct relationship if they care to see for themselves, but quite expect them to use terms like 'distant cousin' ...or more commonly 'a cousin of sorts'. At this point I just give up!

As for taking them through Bryman's step by step relationship calculator, that certainly is best left for Forum Members to digest. I can just hear family and friends (my wife included) ask me to explain it to them. (Sorry Bryman but at least you did ask if someone had a simpler explanation).

In my opinion I think we have to accept that lineage relationships are best left to the cognoscenti!

 

Here's the spreadsheet I used to produce the web page. You (and anyone else) can download at your leasure. It's in my public area on Microsoft's OneDrive.

 

Quite right and I was hoping that someone would be able to supply something but I fear that I shall have to wait a bit longer. I have 'spoken' with other LC members that I have been matched with over the years and been disappointed that almost all of them have trouble understanding the 'simple' chart offered by Norman, or something similar, as an alternative.

I was hoping that something along the lines of the HuMo-gen chart would help to explain rather than just pluck the answer out of thin air. I am a strong believer in being able to derive answers from first principles rather than just learning facts parrot fashion (without first learning the basics).

 

Thanks Norman will do.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the footnote on the Chart exactly covered the point of dissension between me and my daughter, when I corrected her statement that a family member she referred to as a 'second cousin' was in fact a 'first cousin once removed'. I even explained when a 'second cousin' would apply, but it all went way over her head, ending with a sigh and...'whatever'! (Her husband my son-in-law -a great fellow - said never argue with your father about Computers or Genealogy, besides which we need him to take a look at the laptop.. and he gave me a wink!)

 

I was bought up with someone who I had always believed to be my second cousin. His mother, my cousin, was much older than me and her son was two years younger than me. The families always referred to us as second cousins. It was only after I began my genealogical journey I came to learn we were, in fact, 1st cousins once removed. I've explained, several times, but he cannot grasp the concept after nearly 70 years of thinking we were second cousins.

 

FTM and Ancestry can struggle, I have noticed, to be as precise when it comes to cousins marrying outside of the ancestral line from the root person. I have several instances of blood relations marrying and often it seems one isn't registered as a blood relative to the root person (in this case me) while the other is. For example, I have a marriage between my 4th great aunt and my first cousin 4 times removed (his father was my 5th great uncle), and while my 4th great aunt is correctly labelled, her husband becomes "husband of 4th great aunt" instead of "first cousin 4 times removed"; ironically all of his siblings remain with their appropriate tag.

I also have an instance of first cousins marrying, but that's in my ancestral line so there isn't any mislabelling... I just get to double up on ancestors.

 

I have a very dear (now 88) year old first cousin once removed named Beryl who as a child and indeed well into adult hood we were taught to refer to as Aunt Beryl, a spinster lady right to this day. When I began my family history research I was quickly able to see she was not an Aunt at all. Her mother and my (maternal) grandmother were sisters so she was my mother's cousin, and yes Mom always referred to her as cousin Beryl. So I noted her as a first cousin once removed.

Now that is of passing interest but years later -indeed in the last 10 years or so with both parents long gone, I have taken to visiting her with my wife about once a year(she lives in Birmingham). Quite early on I found we both shared a Family Tree interest and she had a wonderful hand written Tree of her own branch line, which of course, crossed over into my maternal online. What is more she confirmed we were first cousins once removed, but that as convention demanded in 'the old days' as children we called her Aunty. Unfortunately she does not have a computer nor indeed want one, so I have provided her with printouts and charts and we spend a hour or more per visit talking about the family. My wife bless her soul endures this because she and Beryl get on well but constantly reminds ... Beryl do say if Bob is boring you! As if?