TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-03 > 1014999611


From: Jim Blease <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] OT
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:21:16 -0500
References: <72.186ed542.29b00a0c@cs.com> <008201c1c116$44098380$925032d2@good> <4.2.2.20020301100240.00af6120@pop3.norton.antivirus>


Lee Hoffman wrote:

> Nope, just second cousins. Many people do use the term "double cousin" (my
> wife has a number of double first cousins), but genealogically speaking
> they're still just cousins. I would agree that, genetically-speaking, the
> relationship seems more that. But genealogically there is no
> difference. That is, there is no recognized genealogical authority who
> endorses the term "double". In other words, a double cousin is a cousin
> is a cousin. <g>


I'll agree with you. Genealogical relationships can be confusing enough
without multiplying the problems with genetic technicalities.

Jim Blease

This thread: