A geneologists nightmare!

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:42 am

Let me give you a little background. I come from a very large Irish Catholic family (13 children). My oldest sister was born in 1942, and my youngest brother was born in 1963. I'm near the end of the list.
My oldest sister had her first child (let's call her 'C') three months before my Mom had me, which means I was an uncle before I was even born.
'C' had her first child at 17 (let's call her 'Y'') making me a great uncle.
'Y' had her first child at 16 or 17 (let's call her 'B') making me a great-great uncle.
'B' is now expecting her first child, which will make me a great-great-great uncle! Shocked

Now I'm trying to figure out my daughters relation to this new child. Is it fourth cousin, once removed, or first cousin, four times removed.

Master of Master Baiters Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 582

I think they would be first cousins, thrice removed if I got the family tree correct.

...........crashoot's mom....................(great-great-great grandma)
crashoot.............crashoot's sister.....(great-great-grandma)
daughter......................C.................(great-grandma)
....................................Y...................(grandma)
....................................B.....................(mom)
....................................baby.................(baby)

daughter and C are first cousins (usually the word first isn't used, just the word cousin)
daughter and Y are first cousins once removed (once removed meaning 1 generation apart)
daughter and B are first cousins twice removed (2 generations apart)
daughter and baby are first cousins thrice removed (3 generations apart)

All I can say is get a photo with all 6 generations if you can.

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:37 am

I have no idea, I just work here! Laughing

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

I had to read that through a couple of times, Crash. Laughing

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin There's even a chart if you go to the link.

Quote:

A system of degrees and removes is used to describe the relationship between the two cousins and the ancestor they have in common. The degree (first, second, third cousin, etc.) indicates the minimum number of generations between either cousin and the nearest common ancestor; the remove (once removed, twice removed, etc.) indicates the number of generations, if any, separating the two cousins from each other.

For example, a person with whom you share a grandparent (but not a parent) is a first cousin; someone with whom you share a great-grandparent (but not a grandparent) is a second cousin; and someone with whom you share a great-great-grandparent (but not a great-grandparent) is a third cousin; and so on. The child of your first cousin is your first cousin once removed because the one generation separating you and the child (the cousin) represents one remove. You and the child are still considered first cousins, as your own grandparent (this child's great-grandparent), as the most recent common ancestor, represents one degree.

I agree with Merry Widow, it's first cousin, three times removed.

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:50 am

Yes!

I'm glad I am not the only one that has such a convoluted family tree... Shocked

They're all just family Very Happy

My oldest (first) cousin is/was 64 and my youngest is 30, the same age as my oldest niece.

13 in the original hoot family... Surprised

Gotta ove those Irish Catholics. Very Happy

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:43 am

Huh - I thought the nightmare was calling genealogists 'geneologists'. They hate that..

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:15 am

My head hurts. Shocked

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Jul 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: UK

I would like to trace my family tree some day as my grandmother was the grandaughter of Michael Fxxxxx, he fathered 60 children back home in Ireland Shocked

, must be loads of relatives out there somewhere, this below is from a newspaper clipping from the 1930's about my great great grandfather, surnames removed:

Quote:

Largest Family In The World

Did you know that early this century a Wexfordman claimed to have the largest family in the world?

No records were available at the time to dispute his claim, but the fact that Michael Fxxxxx had sixty children would surely qualify him for a place in the Guinness Book Of Records even today (clipping from Wexford Diary dated 1984).

His is an amazing story and is related in a clipping from a Wexford newspaper of the 1930s kindly sent to Wexford Diary this week by Mrs Margaret Rxxxx of, Rathmines, Dublin.

The story of the world's largest family appeared on the death of one of Michael Fxxxxxs grandsons Mike, who was a partner in the family's general dealership business with another grandson, the legendary Ben Fxxxxx. Many Wexford people will today recall their famous slogan "The Fxxxxx Brother Never Let You Down". It was painted in bright letters on all their carts.

Ben Fxxxxx was the inheritor of the business started by his grandfather from his home in the Black Cow Lane of Green Street midway through the nineteenth century.

Michael, a native of Co Carlow, who came to Wexford as a schoolteacher with the militia, was known as "The Father of all the Fxxxxxs" and there was a good reason for that. Because Michael Fxxxxx had sixty children from three marriages and lived to the great old age of 99 to see the last of his very large family reach the age of twenty.

The amazing genealogy of the Wexford Fxxxxxs started when Michael married Mary Oxxxxxx of Wexford who presented him with 24 children. After her death he married a Miss Margaret Mxxxxx from Wexford, who added sixteen children to the household.

Following his secind mife's death, Micheal ventured once again into matrimony with Miss Mary Mxxxxx from ballinaslaney, Oylegate, and she added twenty more youngsters to her husband's already extensive responsibilities. Before he died Michael Fxxxxx had lost count of the number of grand-children and great-grand-children he had. There were literally hundreds. In 1934, thirty four years after his death, the great grandchildren alone stood at 124.

Michaels children travelled all over the world as Wexford people were prone to do at that time and the old man would have needed a huge register to keep track of birts, deaths and marriages from year to year. The clipping sent to us by Mrs Roche recalls that Michael Fxxxxx wore out 3 almanacs finding names for his own offspring and tells us that when his youngest child was born, the "Father of all the Fxxxxxs" was well over sixty and probably a grandfather.

On one occasion the family made a count of the first generation and forty-three sons and daughters turned up at the little house in Black Cow Lane for dinner on Christmas day. There were too many for the dinner table (no shit Laughing

) the writer recalls, and while some took turns at the table the others amused themselves outside in Harveys field.

At the time the article was written, all the Fxxxxx children of the first generation had passed away except two, George of Wolfe Tone Villas, (61), and Anthony (6 Cool

from Thomas Clarke Street.

Another son, Martin, had been a member of the Wexford Board of Poor Law Guardians for many years. Apparently the votes of his relatives were enough to see him duly elected with votes to spare. Martin volunteered for service in the First World War and he died in Bombay.

This intriguing story of a Wexford family which still has many well known members in town tells us that Michael Fxxxxx made a living after settling in Wexford by calling to the houses of the poorer classes giving lessons in reading, writing and arithmatic for a few coppers.

On the death of his wife and having a large family to loom after he went into the dealer business and became known all over the county.

Michael fxxxxx died on january 11th, 1900 and is buried with his first wife in the little graveyard of St patrick's in the St Patrick's Square. The chief mourners at his funeral numbered 350 of his direct descendants-surely another record.

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:45 pm

I am laughing because it reminds me of my family tree. I think it is first cousins thrice removed.

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:49 pm

We don't have quite that many in our generation, but the age spread is 18 years from my oldest sister to my youngest. Some had children early, and some had them later, so the cousins are spread out even more.

Add to the confusion that the seven oldest were adopted out (into three different families), and the two youngest were born after that - and we didn't all get together until almost 50 years later. I didn't meet my youngest sisters until the memorial service for my oldest sister.

The answer to the question, "How many brothers and sisters do you have?" is not simple for me. Wink

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:54 pm

If you're confused, Crash, I'm definitely adding to my grey hair and ulcer collection in trying to find out where in The Netherlands my Dutch ancestors were born, etc before they migrated Down Under.

The ancestor who migrated Down Under claimed he was born in Amsterdam but there is no record of him at the Amsterdam Registry of Hatching, Matching & Dispatching. To make matters worse there is no central or regional Registry(s). Each city or town is responsible for its own records. Sad

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:14 am

Yeah, doing that family tree stuff is as addicting as 419ing. And you get the same blank stares if you talk about either subject for too long: it's interesting (to the average civilian) for about 92 seconds. Then powerful 'Boredom Rays' begin to emerge and within 3 minutes everybody within 10 yards begins to yawn and to look at their watches.

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:31 am

reminds me of this song "I'm My Own Grandpa"

which seems to be a true story

Quote:

According to an article by James Pylant at genealogymagazine.com, the song was inspired by an anecdote that has been published periodically by newspapers for well over 150 years. The earliest citation was from the Republican Chronicle of Ithaca, N. Y., Apr. 24, 1822 and that was copied from the London Literary Gazette:

A proof that a man may be his own Grandfather.—There was a widow and her daughter-in-law, and a man and his son. The widow married the son, and the daughter the old man; the widow was, therefore, mother to her husband's father, consequently grandmother to her own husband. They had a son, to whom she was great-grandmother; now, as the son of a great-grandmother must be either a grandfather or great-uncle, this boy was therefore his own grandfather. N. B. This was actually the case with a boy at a school in Norwich.

Master of Master Baiters Joined: 26 Sep 2008 Posts: 689

Dear friend

I am the legal representative of the late Michael F..... It may come as a surprise to you that you are indeed his only living relative ....

Hey! Just think of the body pile up there would have to be on the Sagbame Highway.

A geneologists nightmare!	View next topic View previous topic