8 ms·

In case you were also wondering what a "fourth cousin" was, someone who shares a pair of great-great-great grandparents[0]. Wikipedia has a great set of diagram

by roninb 10y ago

In case you were also wondering what a "fourth cousin" was, someone who shares a pair of great-great-great grandparents[0]. Wikipedia has a great set of diagrams[1] in case you're also confused about first, second, or third cousins. I figure through induction you can presume any nth and nth removed from that page (I foolishly thought 3rd was where people arbitrarily stopped keeping count....) [0] https://www.reference.com/family/fourth-cousin-7b40e096c6d654b7 https://www.reference.com/family/fourth-cousin-7b40e096c6d65... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin#First_cousins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin#First_cousins

skylan_q 10y ago
Where our family is from the priests wouldn't allow marriage between 6th cousins. My grandfather was 6th cousins three times removed from my grandmother. (so she was 9 generations away from common ancestors with him) They had to get written permission from the bishop to get married.
- milesskorpen 10y ago
  Sounds like they basically penalized record keeping ...
  - civilian 10y ago
    Ah, it was probably the Church who was keeping the records in the first place.
    - usrusr 10y ago
      The beauty of selective enforcement. Dig deep enough into your ecclesiastical data-monopoly and you can veto just about any marriage at will. It never was the same again once laymen started to read and write.
    - skylan_q 10y ago
      Yes, it was the Franciscans who were a huge influence and kept record of these things. Most people would remember relations as far as great-grandparents and relations to families/family friends that they knew. Literacy was pretty high in the region early on as well, but people continued to rely on the church for recordkeeping.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  The Church worked very deliberately over centuries to reduce the influence of families / clans, in some places more successfully than others. It all revolves around inheritance rights and accumulated power. (Also in some cases the Church could collect money by charging for exemptions.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity#Religious_and_traditional_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity#Religious_and_tr...
- Asooka 10y ago
  Hold up how does this work? If they're three times removed, then the age difference is something like 50-60 years. Is it a case of a ~75-year-old marrying a ~20-year-old?
LukeShu 10y ago
I used to really struggle with those types of diagrams. Like, they make sense on their own, but it's hard to reason about the patterns with them; the relationships (heh) between each diagram aren't clear. I much prefer the square/diamond type diagram that's further down in the article. It seems like black magic at first, but if you stop and think about it for a bit, once you understand it, is crystal clear. I guess it's about short-term or long-term ease of understanding.
ams6110 10y ago
Wow, takes me way back to an undergrad programming assignment to take a family tree and compute the degree and "removedness" of any two cousins.
fiatjaf 10y ago
I get mad at people who think sons of first-cousins are second-cousins all the time -- and, frankly, almost everyone I know think this way. I'm glad you linked to this Wikipedia article that proves I'm not mad into thinking there is a simple logic pattern that can be applied to cousinship. However, this "once removed" notation is crazy. Why not second-uncle for parents of second-cousins and so on?
- dietrichepp 10y ago
  Pardon me for my ignorance, but wouldn't sons of first cousins be second cousins?
  - ironrabbit 10y ago
    Language quirk :) The son of my first cousin is my first cousin once removed. My son and my cousin's son are second cousins.
    - dietrichepp 10y ago
      Ah, I read "sons of first cousins" as "two people who are first cousins to each other each have a son". "A son of a first cousin" would be much less ambiguous. In fact, even knowing what you meant, I have a hard time reading the meaning you intended to convey. Another clearer way to phrase it would be "sons of my first cousin are not my second cousins".
    - hellofunk 10y ago
      Actually the term "second cousin" does not have a concrete meaning. It can mean a true second cousin, or it can also mean a generation removed from a first cousin. The "once removed" terminology was introduced to compensate for this ambiguity.
    - fiatjaf 10y ago
      No! Stop the removed madness!
  - delecti 10y ago
avodonosov 10y ago
Let's calculate. I have a pair parents, 2 pairs grandparents, 4 pairs of great grandparents, 8 pairs great-great grandparents, and 16 pairs great-great-great grandparents. How to estimate the number of fourth cousins?
logfromblammo 10y ago
Through induction, you can also say that your sibling is your nilth (0th) cousin, and your identical twin is your negative-first cousin. That makes aunt or uncle a nilth cousin once removed, and a great aunt or great uncle a nilth cousin twice removed. Your parents are negative-first cousins once removed. If this sounds ridiculous, that's because it is, as a natural consequence of the ridiculous nomenclature. It would be far less confusing to just insert an unordered pair of numbers for both individuals' genetic distance from their common ancestor. So instead of a first cousin once removed, you would have a (2,3)-cousin. Identical twins would be (0,0), parents would be (0,1), ordinary siblings (1,1), aunts and uncles (1,2), and so on. A fourth cousin would be (5,5). But that doesn't account for half-siblings, so it would be inadequate for some family relationships.
phyllostachys 10y ago
It is mentioned in some comments of comments further down but Wolfram Alpha has some great family tree generation. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=fourth+cousin http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=fourth+cousin
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Also, its grand-uncle (not great-uncle). You don't have a great-mother do you? Its a grandmother. Thus granduncle.

by roninb 10y ago

skylan_q 10y ago

Where our family is from the priests wouldn't allow marriage between 6th cousins. My grandfather was 6th cousins three times removed from my grandmother. (so she was 9 generations away from common ancestors with him) They had to get written permission from the bishop to get married.

milesskorpen 10y ago
Sounds like they basically penalized record keeping ...
- civilian 10y ago
  Ah, it was probably the Church who was keeping the records in the first place.
  - usrusr 10y ago
    The beauty of selective enforcement. Dig deep enough into your ecclesiastical data-monopoly and you can veto just about any marriage at will. It never was the same again once laymen started to read and write.
  - skylan_q 10y ago
    Yes, it was the Franciscans who were a huge influence and kept record of these things. Most people would remember relations as far as great-grandparents and relations to families/family friends that they knew. Literacy was pretty high in the region early on as well, but people continued to rely on the church for recordkeeping.
jacobolus 10y ago
The Church worked very deliberately over centuries to reduce the influence of families / clans, in some places more successfully than others. It all revolves around inheritance rights and accumulated power. (Also in some cases the Church could collect money by charging for exemptions.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity#Religious_and_traditional_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity#Religious_and_tr...
Asooka 10y ago
Hold up how does this work? If they're three times removed, then the age difference is something like 50-60 years. Is it a case of a ~75-year-old marrying a ~20-year-old?

LukeShu 10y ago

I used to really struggle with those types of diagrams. Like, they make sense on their own, but it's hard to reason about the patterns with them; the relationships (heh) between each diagram aren't clear. I much prefer the square/diamond type diagram that's further down in the article. It seems like black magic at first, but if you stop and think about it for a bit, once you understand it, is crystal clear. I guess it's about short-term or long-term ease of understanding.

ams6110 10y ago

Wow, takes me way back to an undergrad programming assignment to take a family tree and compute the degree and "removedness" of any two cousins.

fiatjaf 10y ago

I get mad at people who think sons of first-cousins are second-cousins all the time -- and, frankly, almost everyone I know think this way. I'm glad you linked to this Wikipedia article that proves I'm not mad into thinking there is a simple logic pattern that can be applied to cousinship. However, this "once removed" notation is crazy. Why not second-uncle for parents of second-cousins and so on?

dietrichepp 10y ago
Pardon me for my ignorance, but wouldn't sons of first cousins be second cousins?
- ironrabbit 10y ago
  Language quirk :) The son of my first cousin is my first cousin once removed. My son and my cousin's son are second cousins.
  - dietrichepp 10y ago
    Ah, I read "sons of first cousins" as "two people who are first cousins to each other each have a son". "A son of a first cousin" would be much less ambiguous. In fact, even knowing what you meant, I have a hard time reading the meaning you intended to convey. Another clearer way to phrase it would be "sons of my first cousin are not my second cousins".
  - hellofunk 10y ago
    Actually the term "second cousin" does not have a concrete meaning. It can mean a true second cousin, or it can also mean a generation removed from a first cousin. The "once removed" terminology was introduced to compensate for this ambiguity.
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    No! Stop the removed madness!
- delecti 10y ago

avodonosov 10y ago

Let's calculate. I have a pair parents, 2 pairs grandparents, 4 pairs of great grandparents, 8 pairs great-great grandparents, and 16 pairs great-great-great grandparents. How to estimate the number of fourth cousins?

logfromblammo 10y ago

Through induction, you can also say that your sibling is your nilth (0th) cousin, and your identical twin is your negative-first cousin. That makes aunt or uncle a nilth cousin once removed, and a great aunt or great uncle a nilth cousin twice removed. Your parents are negative-first cousins once removed. If this sounds ridiculous, that's because it is, as a natural consequence of the ridiculous nomenclature. It would be far less confusing to just insert an unordered pair of numbers for both individuals' genetic distance from their common ancestor. So instead of a first cousin once removed, you would have a (2,3)-cousin. Identical twins would be (0,0), parents would be (0,1), ordinary siblings (1,1), aunts and uncles (1,2), and so on. A fourth cousin would be (5,5). But that doesn't account for half-siblings, so it would be inadequate for some family relationships.

phyllostachys 10y ago

It is mentioned in some comments of comments further down but Wolfram Alpha has some great family tree generation. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=fourth+cousin http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=fourth+cousin

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Also, its grand-uncle (not great-uncle). You don't have a great-mother do you? Its a grandmother. Thus granduncle.